LACEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MAY 8, :00 P.M. 420 COLLEGE STREET, LACEY CITY HALL

Transcription

1 CITY COUNCIL ANDY RYDER Mayor CYNTHIA PRATT Deputy Mayor VIRGIL CLARKSON JEFF GADMAN LENNY GREENSTEIN JASON HEARN MICHAEL STEADMAN LACEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MAY 8, :00 P.M. 420 COLLEGE STREET, LACEY CITY HALL CITY MANAGER SCOTT SPENCE CALL TO ORDER: 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS* A. Council Minutes of April 24, 2014 B. A motion to approve payment of claims, wages, and transfers for April 5, 2014, through April 30, * Items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately.. 3. PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA* *The City Council will allow comments under this section on items NOT already on the agenda. Where appropriate, the public will be allowed to comment on agenda items as they are addressed during the meeting.. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: A. CDBG Projects Closeout for Senior Center Expansion and Neighborhood Stabilization Projects (Steve Kirkman) 6. PROCLAMATION: A. Proclamation declaring May as Bicycle Commuter Month (Duncan Green) 7. REFERRAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION: A. Consider ordinance to amend LMC & Parking Regulations (Rick Walk) B. Consider ordinance to amend LMC Street Merchant Regulations (Rick Walk) 8. REFERRAL FROM HEARINGS EXAMINER: 9. RESOLUTIONS:

2 10. ORDINANCES: A. Consider ordinance for Designated Auditing Officer (Troy Woo) 11. MAYOR'S REPORT: 12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: A. Award bid for Lift Station 18 (Scott Egger) B. Authorize City Manager to sign Interlocal Agreement with LOTT for Operations & Maintenance Services (Scott Egger) 13. STANDING GENERAL COMMITTEE: A. Utilities Committee ( ) B. General Government & Public Safety Committee ( ) C. Transportation Committee ( ) 14. OTHER BUSINESS: 15. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: A. Mayor Andy Ryder: 1. Mayors Forum 2. Transportation Policy Board (TPB) B. Deputy Mayor Cynthia Pratt: 1. Energy Advisory Committee 2. LOTT 3. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) C. Councilmember Virgil Clarkson: 1. Health & Human Services Council (HHSC) 2. HOME Consortium 3. Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) D. Councilmember Jeff Gadman 1. Intercity Transit (IT) 2. Joint Animal Services Commission (JASCOM) E. Councilmember Lenny Greenstein 1. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 2. TCOMM911 F. Councilmember Jason Hearn: 1. Community Action Council (CAC) 2. Thurston County Law & Justice Council 3. HTPA-Human Trafficking G. Councilmember Michael Steadman: 1. Economic Development Council (EDC) 2. Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater Visitor & Convention Bureau (VCB) 3. Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) 16. ADJOURN

3 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LACEY CITY COUNCIL HELD THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2014, IN LACEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ryder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Hearn led the pledge of allegiance. COUNCIL PRESENT: A. Ryder, C. Pratt, V. Clarkson, J. Gadman, J. Hearn L. Greenstein, M. Steadman COUNCIL EXCUSED: V. Clarkson STAFF PRESENT: S. Spence, D. Schneider, R. Walk, S. Egger, T. Woo, D. Pierpoint, L. Flemm, C. Litten, J. Rector APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA: Consent Agenda Items: (a) Worksession Minutes of April 3, 2014 (b) Council Minutes of April 10, 2014 Mayor Ryder requested an amendment to the agenda to add a presentation by Lacey Fire District 3. DEPUTY MAYOR PRATT MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND AMENDED AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER GREENSTEIN SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS & PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Ryder presented a framed signed original of the Accord between the City of Lacey and the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Cynthia Iyall, Chair of the Nisqually Tribal Council, expressed appreciation and excitement for the wonderful relationship that has developed between the City of Lacey and the Nisqually Indian Tribe. The Accord affirms common Page 1 of 9

4 interests, economic vitality, mutual goals and cultural history. Terri Thomas, Thurston County Solid Waste Supervisor, presented information on the new Waste Less Food Campaign to raise public awareness regarding the negative impacts of wasted food on social, economic and environmental components of the community. Fire Chief Steve Brooks, Lacey Fire District 3 (LFD3), provided an overview of district operations and funding. The August primary election will include a ballot measure to restore the LFD3 levy rate to $1.50 to maintain service levels and to plan for future growth. Mayor Ryder recognized Paul Enns, Planning Commission member. PROCLAMATION: The Lacey City Council proclaimed April as Non-profit Impact Month. RESOLUTION: Resolution No implements an annual business license renewal fee. Troy Woo, Finance Director, stated the Finance and Economic Development Committee has recommended three proposals to assist the business community and improve City efficiencies. One of the proposals is the implementation of an annual business license renewal fee and adjustment to the initial business license application fee for businesses located outside of Lacey. The proposed resolution would establish initial business license application fees of $25 and annual business license renewal fees of $10. The implementation of a business license renewal would allow the City to recover its costs associated with administering the renewals and could replace Page 2 of 9

5 General Fund revenues lost from the proposed small startup business B&O tax exemption. In addition, it would provide improved equity between business located inside and outside of the city limits. Staff recommends immediate City Council adoption of the resolution with a January 1, 2015 effective date. This will allow for adequate time to perform the City s system changes and planning necessary for the implementation of the BLS partnership. COUNCILMEMBER GADMAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO ESTABLISHING INITIAL BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION FEES OF $25 AND ANNUAL BUSINES LICENSE RENEWAL FEES OF $10. COUNCILMEMBER STEADMAN SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. Resolution No authorizes the City Manager to submit an application to the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for grant assistance for the Woodland Creek Community Park Trail Connection Development Project. Lori Flemm, Parks & Recreation Director, reported the city was awarded an $188,000 RCO grant on May 6, 2010, with a termination date of April 30, The grant was matched by a combination of city funds, donations of cash and volunteer labor from the Woodland Trails Greenway Association and Boy Scouts, and volunteer labor from several community volunteers. The project was constructed in two phases in 2010 and 2012, with the third phase intended to be completed after the construction of the Reclaimed Water Infiltration Facility. Construction conditions were not favorable in the winter and early spring, so the third phase could not be completed by the termination date. A remainder balance of approximately $43,000 in grant funds was unspent. However, the City can submit an application for RCO grant funds on May1, 2014, to complete the project. The RCO grant would be awarded in the Page 3 of 9

6 spring/summer of 2015, so construction would occur in summer/fall of Grant funds are needed to complete the project. COUNCILMEMBER GADMAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE WOODLAND CREEK COMMUNITY PARK TRAIL. COUNCILMEMBER GREENSTEIN SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCES: Ordinance No provides a small business startup business and occupation tax exemption, amending LMC Troy Woo, Finance Director, stated the Finance and Economic Development Committee has recommended three proposals to assist the business community and improve City efficiencies. One of the proposals is the implementation of a small business startup business and occupation (B&O) tax exemption. Providing a small startup business B&O tax exemption would provide new small business with some tax relief, provide economic stimulus, and would further promote Lacey s business friendly environment. It has been suggested that a small business would be defined as having business activity of less than $500,000 annually and be located within the City limits. The exemption would be in effect for the first three consecutive years of operation as long as the business activity remains below $500,000. Staff recommends immediate City Council adoption of the resolution with a January 1, 2015, effective date. This will provide clear City Council direction and allow for adequate time to perform the City s system changes and planning necessary for the implementation of the BLS partnership. COUNCILMEMBER GREENSTEIN MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO AMENDING LMC TO PROVIDE A SMALL BUSINESS STARTUP BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAX Page 4 of 9

7 EXEMPTION. COUNCILMEMBER HEARN SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER S REPORT: Scott Egger, Public Works Director, presented Council with a request to award Lacey Contract Number PW to the low bidder VECA Electric & Technologies from Seattle, WA, in the amount of $304, for the installation of the newly acquired traffic signal controllers and cabinets. The project also includes audible pedestrian signals (APS) to each installation. The Engineer s estimate was $426,740. COUNCILMEMBER GADMAN MOVED TO AWARD PHASE ONE OF LACEY CONTRACT NUMBER PW TO VECA ELECTRIC & TECHNOLOGIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $304, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS. DEPUTY MAYOR PRATT SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. Julie Rector, Water Resources Analyst, presented Council with a request to authorize the City Manager to sign an ILA with Thurston County for monitoring Hicks Lake. Hicks Lake is entirely within the City of Lacey, and Water Resources staff receives questions from residents about the lake s water quality. Information used to answer these questions has come from Thurston County, which has been monitoring the lake since 1994 as part of their Ambient Monitoring program that was jointly funded through Interlocal monitoring agreements with the cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater. Due to budget constraints, Thurston County discontinued monitoring at Hicks Lake, and a number of other sites, in the most recent Interlocal monitoring agreement. As a result, Lacey has been funding monitoring at Hicks Lake through separate agreements to preserve the continuity of the program and comparability of data collected by Thurston County at other area lakes. The overall reduction in cost for the Interlocal monitoring program covers the expense of picking up the funding gap for Hicks Lake. Page 5 of 9

8 At its April 11, 2014, meeting, the Utilities Committee recommended full City Council approval of the Interlocal Agreement with Thurston County for Hicks Lake monitoring. COUNCILMEMBER GADMAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN ILA WITH THURSTON COUNTY FOR HICKS LAKE MONITORING. DEPUTY MAYOR PRATT SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. Troy Woo, Finance Director, presented Council with a proposal to revise the process for City Council approval of city expenditures. During the Washington State Auditor s Office 2012 annual audit of the City of Lacey, it was noted that the Lacey City Council was not approving payment of City claims as required. The City Council and City of Lacey management has a strong history of audit performance and implementation of State Auditor guidance, so staff is recommending changes to the City s accounts payable approval process. Guidance from the BARS manual states that employee certifications of claims against the City do not relieve the governing body of its responsibility and liability for each voucher approved. To indicate the City Council s approval of claims, the BARS Manual suggests the following format be entered in the Council meeting minutes. The following voucher/warrants are approved for payment: (Funds) Total Voucher (warrant) numbers: through $ Payroll warrant / transaction numbers: through $ It is staff s position that the same format could be used for a motion under the consent agenda to satisfy the City Council s responsibility to approve claims Page 6 of 9

9 against the City. It has been the City s long-term practice for the City Manager and Finance Director to approve claims against the City using the City Council adopted procurement policy and authorized expenditures through the adopted budget appropriations at the fund level. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 624 on February 25, 1988, which authorized the procurement policy. The procurement policy is designed to ensure proper disbursements and provide effective internal controls. As customary, the City Council established the policy for procurement procedures and City staff administers and enforces the policy. City staff has developed procedures that include numerous levels of review within the accounts payable process, so a detailed review by City Council shouldn t be necessary as long as the City Council still supports the adopted procurement policies. Each year the City Council authorizes expenditure levels through the budget adoption process. City Council authorizes the budget at the fund level. The City Manager and staff incur claims within the limits of the authorized budget according to policy to provide the level of service and goals and priorities established by the City Council. The adopted budget, like the procurement policy, provides another level of City Council oversight and guidance for expenditures. Staff recommends the procedure of issuing weekly checks continue without prior City Council approval. This will maintain good vendor relations by making timely payments for goods and services. Also, the timing of City Council meetings and the requirements to pay employees in a timely manner do not lend itself to Council approval of payroll processing prior to issuing payment. Otherwise, accounts payable checks and payroll payments could be delayed two weeks or more. City Council approval of payments following the issuance of payment does not diminish the City Council s authority to approve payments. If the City Council disapproves of a claim after the claim has been paid, city staff would be required to pursue collection of the disapproved payment. Page 7 of 9

10 Council discussed the legal and administrative issues related to changing the payment approval process for city expenditures. It was noted that the Council meeting minutes will reflect the motion for disbursement approval by the City Council. COUNCILMEMBER GADMAN MOVED TO APPROVE A FORMAT USING A MOTION UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA TO SATISFY THE CITY COUNCIL S RESPONSIBILITY TO APPROVE CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY. COUNCILMEMBER GREENSTEIN SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER GREENSTEIN MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS, WAGES AND TRANSFERS FOR MARCH 21, 2014 THROUGH APRIL 4, COUNCILMEMBER GADMAN SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. Scott Spence, City Manager, announced the upcoming Lacey S.T.E.M. Fair and Grand Prix Electric Car Races on May 3 from 9 3 at Huntamer Park. Mr. Spence also clarified a news release regarding a Lacey water tank spill and collapse on Fones Road. He noted that the incident did not occur in the City of Lacey. STANDING GENERAL COMMITTEES: Finance Committee Mayor Ryder reported the Committee met on April 2, 2014, to discuss an Encumbrance Carryover Budget Amendment, revising the city s accounts payable approval process, and continuing participation in the Local Government Investment Pool. Community Relations & Public Affairs Committee Councilmember Greenstein reported the committee met on April 7, 2014, to discuss the Community Annual Report. Page 8 of 9

11 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS: EDC Councilmember Steadman announced that four Lacey businesses recently received recognition at the annual EDC business luncheon. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Ryder adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. MAYOR: ATTESTED BY CITY CLERK: DATE APPROVED: Page 9 of 9

12 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 8, 2014 SUBJECT: Disbursement Approval RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve payment of claims, wages, and transfers. STAFF CONTACT: Troy Woo, Finance Director ORIGINATED BY: Troy Woo, Finance Department BACKGROUND: The action requested of the City Council is by motion to approve payment of claims, wages and transfers for 4/5/2014 through 4/30/2014. The disbursements consist of the following: Checks: Week of Beg. Check No. End. Check No. Amount 4/11/ , /18/ , /25/ , *4/30/ , Electronic Transfers: Week of Amount 4/11/ , *4/17/ , /18/ , /24/ , /25/ , *4/30/2014 1,100, /30/ , Payroll: Month Ended: Wages 4/30/2014 1,128, * Disbursements for employee out-of-pocket deductions and employee benefits. Page 1 of 1

13 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 8, 2014 SUBJECT: Neighborhood Stabilization Program / Community Development Block Grant Public Hearing RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a final public hearing as required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to determine public benefit of the following projects: Neighborhood Stabilization Program Project 08- F Affordable Housing Preservation; and Community Development Block Grant Project Lacey Senior Center Expansion. STAFF CONTACT: ORIGINATED BY: ATTACHMENTS: FISCAL NOTE: PRIOR REVIEW: Scott Spence, City Manager Liz Gotelli, Public Affairs and Human Resources Director Steve Kirkman, Public Affairs Manager Public Affairs and Human Resources Department No attachments Approximately $1.3 million in Housing and Urban Development Neighborhood Stabilization and Community Development Block Grant funding was provided to the City of Lacey for projects that benefitted low- and moderate-income residents. The projects were reviewed by the City Council during initial public hearings under the NSP and CDBG grant application processes. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the public hearing is to solicit testimony from low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents and the general public to assess whether project goals of the City of Lacey s Neighborhood Stabilization Program and Community Development Block Grant Program have been successfully met. LMI residents are defined as households with maximum incomes ranging from $41,550 for a one-person household to $78,350 for eight people. The Neighborhood Stabilization (NSP) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs are funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and administered locally by Washington State Department of Commerce. Page 1 of 2

14 A $356,000 NSP grant was used to preserve affordable LMI rental housing in partnership with the Housing Authority of Thurston County (HATC) and the Community Action Council (CAC) of Lewis, Mason & Thurston Counties. HATC utilized $178,000 in NSP funding to assist in the recovery and repair of a foreclosed four-bedroom single-family residence. The CAC also utilized $178,000 in NSP funding toward recovery and repair of a foreclosed 2-bedroom single-family residence. Both homes are being rented to very-low-income families. Final review of Lacey s NSP projects was completed by the Department of Commerce in late This public hearing is the remaining step in the grant close-out process. A $1 million CDBG grant was used toward expansion of the Lacey Senior Center in partnership with Senior Services for South Sound. The $2.9 million project doubled the size of the facility to 10,000 square-feet, significantly increasing capacity for programming and services. Lacey has experienced dramatic increases in demand for services to seniors. Since opening at its current Woodland Creek Community Park location in 2003, use of the center has surged from 257 members to nearly 1,700. The expanded building was occupied in the Spring of 2013 The CDBG project has several steps remaining to complete close-out, including this final public hearing. ADVANTAGES: 1. The final Public Hearing meets the city s requirements to solicit public testimony as required for completed HUD-funded projects. DISADVANTAGES: 1. No disadvantages have been identified. Page 2 of 2

15

16

17 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBJECT: Planning Commission recommendation to amend the City s parking requirements contained in LMC and RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the referral from the Planning Commission regarding revisions to the City s parking regulations contained in Lacey Municipal Code and STAFF CONTACT: Scott Spence, City Manager Rick Walk, Community Development Director Ryan Andrews, Associate Planner ORIGINATED BY: Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed amendments to LMC and Minutes of February 4, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting FISCAL NOTE: There will be no budget impacts as a result of the proposal. PRIOR REVIEW: March 3, 2014 Council Land Use Committee Work Session February 4, 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing January 7, 2014 Planning Commission Briefing November 19, 2013 Planning Commission Briefing BACKGROUND: At the joint Planning Commission-City Council meeting on September 19, 2013, the Community Development Department proposed adding amendments to the City s parking ordinance to the work program. The focus of the amendments is on the elimination of the mandatory minimum parking standard. Elimination of the minimum parking allows for better utilization of sites for purposes other than parking (buildings, site amenities, etc.), reduces the amount of impervious surface, and would encourage infill through the conversion of existing parking lots to other uses. The amendments also support moving away from auto-centric parking area design to balance the needs of pedestrians and pedestrian connectivity this is achieved through added provisions for design of parking Page 1 of 3

18 lots to emphasize pedestrian comfort, safety and lighting. The revisions also support concepts identified in the Woodland District Strategic Plan to give credit for on-street parking in zones with pedestrian emphasis, promote shared parking, and enable the city to enact parking sheds which require parking over a certain geographic area rather than on a site-by-site basis. Amendments include changes to both Chapter (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and Chapter (Standards for Parking Lot Construction). The following list provides some additional discussion of the proposed changes: 1. Intent page 1, Pedestrian design emphasis: In the intent section, a statement has been added to make pedestrian design a priority over access and movement of cars in parking lots. Additionally, an intent statement has been added to allow (and give credit for) onstreet parking in zones with pedestrian emphasis. 2. District requirements page 2 and 3, Optional minimums: The proposed amendments would eliminate minimum parking requirements for all uses except for single-family residential. For all uses except for single-family residential, there would still be a requirement to provide parking and the minimum standards would be used as a guide, but the minimum standards would not be used to require a developer to provide more parking than is needed. Going below the guideline suggested ratio would still require justification, but lowering the overall parking need is encouraged. Parking minimums would be retained for single-family residential uses because of the potential impacts to neighbors should parking be eliminated in residential areas. 4. Throughout draft, Adjust to accommodate new minimums: New wording to reflect minimums as suggestions and not mandatory. This new concept required adjustment of wording in current regulations related to minimum requirements and enforcement. 5. Shared parking page 3: Edits to be consistent with changes to minimum requirements section. 6. Page 4, Transportation Demand management (TDM): Modified wording for refinement. 7. Page 5, District shed parking : Provide the opportunity to develop district-wide parking sheds that take advantage of parking resources to provide parking credit to participants through reciprocal easements. This would eliminate the need for individual onsite minimum parking requirements, conserve land for more infill opportunity and strengthen pedestrian connectivity throughout the district. 8. Page 7, On-street parking: Allow credit for on-street parking. 9. Page 8, Parking design standards related to pedestrians: Added provisions for design of parking lots to emphasize pedestrian comfort, safety and lighting. Page 2 of 3

19 10. Page 9, Bicycle design standards: This section includes wording changes to use shall instead of should when outlining bike parking standards to make the requirements less passive. 11. Section Design of Parking Lots: Chapter 14.19, providing standards for the design of parking lots, has also been amended for consistency with the amended zoning chapter. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 4, One member of the public testified at the hearing and generally spoke in favor of the amendments. Upon the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed changes to the ordinances. Based on the discussion, the Planning Commission made a unanimous recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendments to the parking regulations contained in LMC and as described above. ADVANTAGES: 1. Allowing the reduction of minimum parking requirements allows for better utilization of limited land resources (less parking space means more space to support buildings or other uses), supports possible infill of existing parking areas, and would reduce impervious surfaces. 2. The amendments give credit for on-street parking, promote shared parking, and enable the City to enact concepts such as parking sheds which are important tools for addressing parking needs and were identified in the Woodland District Strategic Plan. 3. Requiring site designs to emphasize pedestrian comfort, safety and lighting will ensure that parking lots consider pedestrian movements through sites as well as vehicular travel. DISADVANTAGES: 1. No disadvantages have been identified. Page 3 of 3

20 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF LACEY AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PARKING, AMENDING CHAPTERS , , , , , , AND , REPEALING TABLE 16T-13 AND ADDING A NEW TABLE 16T-13, ALL OF THE LACEY MUNICIPAL CODE AND APPROVING A SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Permit required. The application for a permit shall be accompanied by plans and specifications to be reviewed by the city in order to assure compliance with the city s requirements. This will include: Emphasis on pedestrian comfort, convenience and safety (Chapter B 8 (Development Standards Parking Area Design); Integration of transit access as described in Chapter as well as design features to accommodate the needs of Intercity Transit; for sstorm drainage discharge and on-site retention or detention,; mmatching street and/or sidewalk grades,; aaccess locations,; Consideration and conformance with future street improvements,; aaccessibility regulations,; rrequired landscaping; and zzoning regulations, particularly Chapter of the city

21 Section 2. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Materials and workmanship. Materials and workmanship for all parking lot construction regardless if a parking lot construction permit is required, must comply with city adopted standards and specifications as set forth in LMC Parking lot surfacing materials shall satisfy the requirement for a permanent all weather surface. Asphalt concrete pavement and cement concrete pavement satisfy this requirement and are approved materials. To meet pedestrian comfort improvement requirements special color and texture need to be designed into pedestrian lanes and crossings. Gravel surfaces are not acceptable or approved surface material types. Combination grass/paving systems are approved surface material types, however, their use requires submittal of an overall parking lot paving plan showing the limits of the grass/paving systems and a description of how the systems will be irrigated and maintained. If the city engineer determines the grass/paving system is not appropriate for the specific application, alternate approved surfacing materials shall be utilized. Other types of surfacing materials will be considered subject to the approval of the city engineer prior to construction. Section 3. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to: A. Assure that space is provided for the parking, loading and unloading of motor vehicles on the site of premises or uses which attract said motor vehicles; B. Provide minimum and maximum standards of space and parking arrangements, and for the movement of motor vehicles into and out of such spaces; - 2 -

22 C. Promote implementation of the city of Lacey Transportation Plan policies to support commute trip reduction programs and more use of transportation choices.; D. Provide alternatives and incentives to reduce parking needs by utilizing transportation demand management (TDM) strategies.; E. Reduced parking has benefits, particularly considering opportunities for alternative use of valuable land resources. Less space utilized for parking means additional area for retail space, additional building pads, or more pervious surface and landscaping. Increased retail space can help promote a healthy retail tax base. More pervious surface and landscaping can reduce drainage impacts, and promote more attractive cityscape.; F. Avoid or reduce traffic congestion on public streets by:calm traffic for pedestrian comfort and security on public streets and parking lots by: 1. Keeping the need for on-street parking to a minimum, and 21. Controlling access to sites; and 2. Allowing parking on the streets in zones with a pedestrian emphasis for separation between the sidewalk and moving automobiles; G. Enhance safety for pedestrians and motor vehicle operators; H. Encourage the creation of an aesthetically pleasing and functionally adequate system of off-street parking and loading facilities. Section 4. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: General requirements. A. Off-street parking spaces and driveways shall not be used at any time for purposes other than their intended use, i.e., the temporary storage of motor vehicles used by persons visiting or having business to conduct on the premises for which the parking is provided. Provided, however, the site plan review committee may approve - 3 -

23 other uses it deems reasonable that will not adversely impact parking requirements for the primary use of the property such as street merchant pads, pedestrian refuge islands, and pocket parks for pedestrian seating and use. B. Parking space required and intended for use by occupants or users of specific premises shall not be leased or rented to others, nor shall such space be made unavailable through other means to the users for whom the parking spaces are intended. This, however, does not preclude shared parking arrangements approved by the city or other activities approved by the site plan review committee. C. Except where specifically permitted in certain zoning districts, off-street parking spaces shall not be used for loading or unloading of commercial vehicles larger than those vehicles for which the parking spaces are intended. D. Whenever a building or a piece of land is put to a use different from the immediately preceding use, or when a building is remodeled, reconstructed or expanded, adequate off-street parking shall be provided consistent with the new use, reconstruction or expansion of the premises. E. Proposed large projects that are defined as major employers or worksites (RCW ) shall provide an assessment of the cost of parking space separate from the cost of the area used for building purposes. This information will help the applicant, the city of Lacey and Intercity Transit evaluate opportunities for parking reduction and TDM strategies. Section 5. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: District Parking requirements. A. The requirements for any use not listed herein shall be those of the listed use most similar to the unlisted use. When similarity is not apparent, the enforcing officer and/or the site plan review committee shall determine the minimum and maximum for the unlisted use

24 B. For conditional uses, as identified and described in Chapter LMC, the parking requirement shall be as provided in that chapter or as determined by the site plan review committee. C. Residential District. Off-street parking requirements for residential districts are located in Table 16T-13. D. Commercial, Business Park and Industrial Uses. 1. General Parking Standards Parking standard table: a. In the several commercial, industrial, business park, and mixed use districts, off-street parking requirements shall be as shown in Table 16T-13, provided that all of the property is controlled by a single person or corporation, or written agreements for shared parking, acceptable to the city, are filed with the enforcing officer. b. Phased reduction of maximum parking standards: One technique for transportation demand management (TDM) is to reduce maximum allowable parking spaces. This can be done by slowly phasing down the maximum allowable number of parking spaces over a period of years. This technique has advantages of reducing vehicle trips and conserving urban commercial land that can be used for other purposes. However, this technique has the potential to have a significant adverse impact on the jurisdiction s economic development if other reasonable forms of alternative transportation are not available. This technique should be periodically revisited to consider its viability but should not be implemented until its viability for Lacey is established. c. Reducing mminimum optional guidelines standards and increasing maximum standards: - 5 -

25 To promote parking reduction, the optional minimum guideline serves as a suggested parking number but is not mandatory for automobiles except for single-family residential development. Applicants will be encouraged to provide less automobile parking than the minimum listed whenever possible based upon TDM available on-street parking, potential shared parking within walking distance and other factors. The minimum number listed for bicycle parking shall be provided as indicated in the table for both commercial and residential development. The number of parking spaces need to serve a project must be demonstrated to the site plan review committee based upon a parking plan considering TDM techniques and other relevant factors. Upon justification to the satisfaction of the committee, whatever number of parking spaces agreed upon shall be the number required, and this shall be an enforceable condition of the approval. The site plan review committee may reduce the minimum amount of parking pursuant to requirements of LMC (D)(3) and/or the mixed use parking reduction standards in Table 16T-13 of this chapter. Additionally, tthe maximum parking standards may be increased if the site plan review committee finds compelling reasons to do so. Such determination shall be at the sole discretion of the committee based upon such factors as unique site or use requirements, historical data of a particular use or other relevant factors indicating additional parking is necessary to properly serve a use or uses at a site. Shared parking agreements are encouraged if the physical relationship between the premises is within convenient walking distance and makes such sharing possible

26 2. If more parking spaces than the maximum permitted by Table 16T- 13 exist on the subject property, an owner/developer may lease those excess spaces until conformance with Table 16T-13 is reached. If fewer parking spaces than the minimum required by Table 16T-13 exist on the subject property, no parking space existing on the effective date of Ordinance 1130 may be eliminated unless it is replaced by another parking space serving the use or techniques are applied to allow such reduction pursuant to this chapter. The minimum automobile and bicycle parking requirements specified in Table 16T-13 may be adjusted by the enforcing officer and/or site plan review committee under the following conditions: when in their opinion an adjustment will be in accord with the purposes of this chapter, and will not create an adverse impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the subject property, or in the general vicinity of the subject property. Covenants, guarantees or agreements shall be required as necessary to ensure continued compliance with this chapter. a. Two or more uses may sshared a parking area or garage ifparking is particularly_encouraged when: (1) The total number of parking spaces provided is sufficient to meet expected demand at least equal to the sum of the minimum number of spaces required for each use less the mixed use parking reduction standard, if permitted, and no greater than the sum of the maximum number of spaces permitted for each use; or (2) The uses are operating during different hours and the number of parking spaces is at least equal to the minimum number of spaces required needed for all uses at any one time are satisfied. operating at the same time less the mixed use parking reduction standards, iif permitted, and the total number - 7 -

27 of spaces for a shared arrangement should be no greater than the maximum number of spaces permitted for all uses operating at the same time. b. Where adjoining parking facilities of two or more ownerships are developed and designed as one parking facility, a reduction of required parking spaces may be permitted based upon the increased potential opportunity for shared parking and other parking reduction techniques. Parking reduction allowed will be commensurate with parking techniques utilized. c. The continuation of joint or shared facilities shall should be assured by a sufficient legal document such as a covenant or reciprocal easement agreement or by participation in a local improvement district or parking association. Joint or shared parking associated with multi-tenant retail and commercial uses will be considered to be a shared parking facility. Lease agreements will satisfy the requirement for a sufficient legal document. However, any new tenant whose parking requirement reduces the total parking available in the shared parking facility below seventy-five percent of the requirements for all uses sharing the facility, will be required to provide additional parking. d. For large projects where a traffic study is required under Chapter LMC (Traffic Mitigation and Concurrency) and the proposal has one hundred or more employees, a comprehensive TDM strategy may be proposed for to achieve a reduction in required minimum parking listed in the parking table. Upon demonstration to the enforcing officer and/or site plan review committee that effective alternatives to automobile access are in effect, they may reduce, by not more than fifty percent, in increments the amount of parking prescribed for any use, or combination of uses on the same or adjoining sites. Additionally, a bonus credit towards transportation impact fees may be awarded for reducing parking - 8 -

28 area pursuant to LMC The reduction in parking permitted and the incentive bonus shall be commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness and demonstrated reduction in off-street parking demand effectuated by such alternative programs. Alternative programs that may be considered by the enforcing officer and/or site plan review committee under this provision include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Private vanpool operation; (2) Transit/vanpool fare subsidy; (3) Imposition of a charge for parking; (4) Provision of subscription bus services; (5) Flexible work hour schedule; (6) Capital improvements for transit services; (7) Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools; (8) Participation in the ride-matching program; (9) Reduction of parking fees for carpools and vanpools; (10) Establishment of a transportation coordinator position to implement carpool, vanpool and transit programs; (11) Bicycle parking facilities including associated shower and changing facilities; (12) Compressed work week; (13) Telecommuting

29 (14) Other techniques and strategies approved by the Site Plan Review Committee. e. Anyone proposing a pparking reduction under this LMC (D)(32) must provide information regarding the administration of the program to the site plan review committee. The information must include: (1) Address each individual TDM strategy as part of the transportation impact analysis; (2) Provide the city with an estimate of peak hour employees as part of their site plan review application and traffic impact analysis; (3) Provide estimated parking occupancy rates for the development as part of the transportation impact analysis showing average weekday use; (4) Demonstrate how TDM strategies will be used to minimize the need for parking. 3. The City is hereby authorized to develop parking requirements specific to certain geographic locations or districts rather than individual sites by pooling parking supply in desired locations. Any parking requirements established as part of these programs may deviate from the typical standards contained herein and would be binding on the properties within these locations. E. Transportation Demand Management Incentives. The site plan review committee shall determine whether the applicant can receive a traffic impact mitigation fee reduction for implementation of TDM strategies that reduce parking needs. Such incentives will be as listed in the following schedule as well as any traffic mitigation credit allowed under LMC The incentive bonus is as follows:

30 1. Any developer who builds at the minimum amount of parking allowed shall receive a five percent trip reduction in the calculation of traffic impacts. 2. Any developer who builds at or below the minimum and includes significant strategies from LMC (D)(32)(d) is eligible for an additional five percent trip reduction bonus. 3. Additional bonuses will be allowed under the provisions of LMC Section 6. Table 16T-13 of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Section 7. Table 16-T13 is hereby added to the Lacey Municipal Code in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 8. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Off-street loading. Off-street loading shall be required for all commercial establishments which are engaged in the retailing or wholesaling of merchandise requiring regular delivery such as food retailers, lumber yards, hardware stores, department stores and the like. Total Gross Floor Area of Building(s) Space Required Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 1 5,000 sq. ft. to 25,000 sq. ft. 2 25,000 sq. ft. to 50,000 sq. ft. 3 Each additional 50,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof in excess of 25,000 sq. ft. 1 additional All off-street loading and unloading spaces shall be of adequate size and with adequate access thereto to accommodate a vehicle forty-five feet in length, eight feet in width, and fourteen feet in height. Each loading space shall be surfaced with an

31 asphalt, concrete or similar pavement so as to provide a surface that is durable and dust-free and shall be so graded and drained as to properly dispose of all surface water. The Director may modify, reduce or waive this requirement if it would result in a more attractive and functional urban environment. Section 9. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Development standards. A. Parking lot construction shall comply with LMC B. Parking area design shall include: 1. Ingress and Egress. The location of all points of ingress and egress to parking areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the city engineer. 2. Backing Out Prohibited. In all commercial and industrial developments and in all residential buildings containing five or more dwelling units, parking areas shall be so arranged as to make it unnecessary for a vehicle to back out into any street or public right-ofway. 3. Parking Spaces--Access and Dimensions. Adequate provision shall be made for individual ingress and egress by vehicles to all parking stalls at all times by means of unobstructed maneuvering aisles. Maneuvering aisles and parking stall dimensions shall be as shown in Tables 16T-18, 16T-19, and 16T Surfacing. All parking areas for more than four vehicles shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or similar pavement so as to provide a surface that is durable and dust free and shall be so graded and drained as to properly dispose of all surface water. 5. Stormwater Runoff. All stormwater runoff shall be retained and disposed of on site or disposed of in a system designed for such runoff

32 and which does not flood or damage adjacent properties. Systems designed for runoff retention and control shall comply with specifications provided by the city and shall be subject to its review and approval, and shall, moreover, comply with Chapter LMC pertaining to community facilities. 6. Parking spaces may be designed and constructed for up to fifty percent of the required number for compact size cars. An applicant must clearly identify all spaces designed and constructed for compact car use. The enforcing officer and/or site plan review committee may approve the design and designation of more than fifty percent of the spaces for use by compact cars if the applicant demonstrates that no adverse impact will result. 7. Parking area for land uses located outside the city shall be prohibited. 8. Convenient and safe, marked pedestrian access shall be provided. At a minimum, pedestrian features shall include: from parking areas to pedestrian linkage systems and from parking areas to principal uses. Raised cross-walks with color and texture (preferably brick or brick like) where pedestrian access crosses automobile access lanes. Pedestrian lanes shall be designed with texture and color, preferably brick or brick like accents. Planter areas shall be designed in consideration of pedestrian access to provide separation from automobile access lanes, to help identify areas for pedestrian access and to make pedestrian access more comfortable and inviting. Pedestrian access shall be designed through a consideration of onsite activity as well as uses and destination sites that are located in the surround area. Where parking areas for other

33 destination sites are adjacent to the site, linkage should be provided so customers from one site will not have to get in a car and drive to the next. Lighting shall be provided along designated pedestrian routes to enhance safe walking conditions and to deter crime. Lighting shall be adequate, focused and shield to illuminate pedestrian paths and to prevent light impacts to adjacent properties. Lights provided for a parking lot shall be designed to provide coverage for both vehicles and pedestrians and may be of a scale appropriate to both. Where pedestrian routes leave a parking lot pedestrian scale lighting shall be used. 9. An owner/developer may install the required parking spaces in phases if a phased schedule has been approved by the enforcing officer and/or site plan review committee. This schedule must specifically indicate when the minimum/maximum parking requirements will be provided. The enforcing officer and/or site plan review committee may permit the use of temporary parking areas with appropriate screening as part of a phasing schedule. In addition, the enforcing officer and/or site plan review committee may require a performance assurance device to insure conformance with the requirements of Ordinance When adequate vehicular access to an approved lot or development is available from a side street, no such access shall be permitted from the front street. Where lots have double frontage, if vehicular access from a side street or a street of lower functional classification is not available, such access shall be from the street anticipated to carry the least amount of traffic or the street that would have the least conflict with pedestrian traffic. 11. Parking area and circulation design

34 a. The city public works department shall have the authority to fix the location, width and manner of approach of vehicular ingress or egress from a building or parking area to a public street and to alter existing ingress and egress as may be required to control street traffic in the interest of public safety and general welfare. b. Internal circulation of the lot shall be so designed as to minimize conflicts with pedestrians with priority given to pedestrians considering convenience, comfort, safety and security. iin-and-out driving time, idling time and time spent looking for a parking space should be a consideration, but should not influence design parameters that reduce pedestrian functionality. c. When off-street parking is provided in the rear of a building and a driveway or lane alongside the building provides access to the rear parking area, such driveway or lane shall be a minimum width of twelve feet with a fiveeight-foot minimum width sidewalk adjoining the building and curbed or raised six inches above the driveway surface. Location of required pedestrian features such as a raised crosswalk across automobile lanes must be integrated into the design to provide the most convenient, safe and functional pedestrian linkage possible. d. Parking areas shall include landscaping as required by Chapter LMC. Landscaping shall be designed to provide both functional and aesthetic benefits. e. Parking circulation and design shall meet requirements for public transportation and pedestrians under LMC C. Bicycle design standards. 1. The minimum bicycle rack should shall be grouped into four parking stalls for ease of visibility to the public. Bicycle facilities should shall be shared among adjoining establishments

35 2. Bicycle racks which only support a bicycle front or rear wheel are not permitted. The rack shall be securely mounted to the ground and covered. 3. Bicycle parking spaces should shall be two feet by six feet with no less than a seven foot over head and a five-foot maneuvering aisle behind each row of bicycle parking. 4. A bicycle parking area should shall be separated from a motor vehicle parking area by a barrier, post or bollard, or by at least five feet of open space behind the maneuvering area. 5. Bicycle facilities should shall be located no further from a public entrance than the nearest non-handicapped parking stall. 6. If public bicycle parking is not clearly visible from the main entrance then directional signs should shall be provided. 7. All major employers or major worksites, as defined by RCW , shall provide a minimum of one shower and changing facility per gender. Section 10. The Summary attached hereto is hereby approved for publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, at a regularly-called meeting thereof, held this day of, CITY COUNCIL By: Mayor

36 Approved as to form: City Attorney Attest: City Clerk

37 EXHIBIT A TABLE 16T-13 Use Unit Measure Optional Min BUSINESS PARK Max Required Bicycle Parking Spaces General Business Park 1 Per 1,000 square feet 2 4 See offices COMMERCIAL Banks Per 1,000 gross square feet 2 3 See offices Billiard Halls Per table per 20 auto stalls. Minimum of 4 Bowling Alleys Per alley per 20 auto stalls. Minimum of 4 Commercial recreation Per 1,000 s.f per 20 auto stalls. Minimum of 4. Daycare, preschools, nursery schools Per teacher plus one drop off loading area per 7 students per 25 auto stalls. Minimum of 1 Hotels, motels Per room or suite 1 2 See retail Medical and dental clinic and offices Per 1,000 S.F. of GFA 2 4 See offices Mini storage Per 100 units or a minimum of 3 spaces plus 2 for permanent on-site managers 1 None Mortuaries, funeral homes Per 4 seats 1 2 None Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Area Per 1000 square feet 1 2 See retail Office building Per 1,000 GFA With on-site customer service per 15 auto stalls. Minimum of 2. Without on-site customer service Regional shopping centers, food and drug stores Per 1,000 square feet of GFA 3 6 See retail Restaurants Per 100 square feet of dining area 1 4 See retail Retail Per 1,000 gross square feet per 20 auto stalls. Minimum of 2 Retail in mixed use development 2 Per 1,000 gross square feet 2 4 See retail Service Stations (mini marts are retail uses) Per employee plus per service bay None INDUSTRIAL General Industrial Greatest number of employees on a single shift plus one S.F. of parking for each s.f. of display area plus one space for each vehicle owned, leased or operated by the company See offices Warehouse Per 1000 GFA plus 1 None Per 400 GFA used for office or display area

38 INSTITUTIONAL Convalescent facilities, nursing homes Per 2 patient beds 1 3 See offices Hospital Per bed See offices Libraries Per 200 S.F. of GFA per 20 auto stalls. Minimum of 2. Schools, elementary and junior high Per classroom and office per classroom Schools, senior high Per classroom and office plus per each 5 students of designated capacity per five auto stalls. Minimum of 2 PLACES OF ASSEMBLY Places of assembly without fixed seats Per 1000 GFA per 25 auto stalls. Minimum of 2. Places of worship Per 4 seats per 40 auto stalls. Minimum of 4. Stadiums, auditoriums, gymnasiums, Per 4 seats of the permitted assembly occupants per 25 auto stalls. theaters 4 Minimum of 4. RESIDENTIAL Accessory Dwelling Unit Per dwelling unit 1 None Single Family Per dwelling unit 2 6 None Duplexes Per dwelling unit 2 None Multifamily Structures Per dwelling unit per 10 auto stalls. 2 minimum per building. Mobile Home Subdivision Per dwelling unit 2 None Mobile Parks 5 Per dwelling unit 1.5 None Rooming houses, lodging houses, bachelor or efficiency units Per occupant 1 3 None Senior citizen apartments Per 3 dwelling units 1 2 See multifamily 1 When calculating need, a lower ratio of five-tenths per 1,000 GFA can be justified when a covenant is attached to the property that limits the occupancy load to 95% of the parking stalls available. In addition, the SPRC may authorize a parking ratio up to 5 spaces per 1,000 GFA if the need can be demonstrated. 2 If retail space in a mixed-use development exceeds 40 percent of the gross floor area of the development, the retail use parking requirements of this section applies to the entire space. 3 Gross square feet does not include enclosed or covered areas used for off-street parking or loading, mechanical floor areas or covered public spaces. 4 School and/or public facility parking spaces may be used provided the facilities are on the same or contiguous parcels within 300 feet of the theater or auditorium. 5 In mobile home parks, the parking spaces in excess of one per mobile home may be grouped in shared parking areas. 6 For single family residential development, a minimum of 2 parking spaces is required. The following notes apply to all of the above uses: Minimum automobile spaces listed in the table are optional guidelines provided in section (Parking Requirements) D.1.c. (Optional Minimum guidelines). Minimum parking spaces for bike parking is mandatory. Parking ratios for mixed use development projects shall be determined by calculating the percentage of GFA by use multiplied by the appropriate parking ratio for each use plus a 5% parking reduction for two uses, 10% parking reduction for three uses and 15% parking reduction for four or more uses

39 Parking spaces provided as part of the above/below grade parking amenity identified in Table 14T-12 shall be exempt from all maximum parking requirements. All major employers or major worksites, as defined by RCW , shall designate at least 5% of auto spaces as carpool spaces. These spaces must be located as close to the main employee entrance as possible and shall be called out on the site plan. Where adjacent roads are designed for on street parking and approved by the Public Works Director, parking credit may be given for on street parking

40 SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION ORDINANCE NO CITY OF LACEY The City Council of the City of Lacey, Washington, passed on, Ordinance No., entitled AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PARKING, AMENDING CHAPTERS , , , , , , AND , REPEALING TABLE 16T-13 AND ADDING A NEW TABLE 16T-13, ALL OF THE LACEY MUNICIPAL CODE AND APPROVING A SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION. The main points of the Ordinance are described as follows: 1. The Ordinance amends standards for parking lot construction and off-street parking and loading. 2. The Ordinance approves this Summary for Publication. A copy of the full text of this Ordinance will be mailed without charge to any person requesting the same from the City of Lacey. Published:,

41 Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Gail Madden. MINUTES Lacey Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, February 4, :30 p.m. Lacey City Hall Council Chambers, 420 College Street SE Planning Commission members present: Gail Madden, Carolyn St. Claire, Mike Beehler, Catherine Murcia, and Albert de Santis. Rebecca Lee arrived after approval of agenda and minutes. Staff present: Rick Walk, Ryan Andrews, Tom Palmateer and Leah Bender. Also present: Paul Enns. Gail Madden noted a quorum present. Carolyn St. Claire made a motion, seconded by Catherine Murcia, to approve the agenda for tonight s meeting. The motion carried. Mike Beehler made a motion, seconded by Catherine Murcia, to approve the January 21 minutes. The motion carried. 1. Public Comments: None. 2. Commission Member s Report: Mike Beehler attended the Conference of Corridor Commissions Meeting and found it interesting. Gail Madden attended the last Council meeting and reported that Council thanked former Planning Commissioners for their service, and will be moving forward on the plastic bag ban. Gail asked Rick Walk if he would like to give the director s report after the public hearing and he agreed. 3. Public Hearing: Parking Ordinance Amendments: Gail Madden opened the public hearing at 5:35 p.m. Ryan Andrews gave an overview and summarized the major changes that have been made to the ordinance. Ryan pointed out that chapter has also been amended in keeping with the intent of chapter It was pointed out that ADA compliance is not mentioned in the development standards. Ryan said that ADA compliance is a federal requirement and something could be added if desired but it would be duplicative. Chris Blume testified. He said that he has no immediate objections to the language but suggests that the city take care so that the changes won t make Lacey less attractive for potential retailers or make it more difficult for existing businesses. Mr. Blume pointed out that some of the restrictions would be cost prohibitive. Ryan noted that a copy of the amended ordinance was sent to the Chamber and they had no concerns. The public hearing was closed at 5:50 p.m. There was a discussion about the type of materials used for parking areas. Chapter refers to materials. Low impact development techniques will be required as part of the NPDES permit and will be implemented in It was suggested that new Planning Commissioners be brought up to date on matters prior to public hearings as they were not part of the initial discussions. Mike Beehler made a motion, seconded by Catherine Murcia, to approve the staff recommendations and forward the amended ordinance to Council. The motion carried. 4. Director s Report: Rick Walk reminded Planning Commissioners about the joint work session with Council this Thursday. Rick said an item will most likely be added to the agenda regarding a road connection and stormwater project near Chambers Lake. Rick said he will have copies of the packets and the work program available at the meeting. Makers has been selected as the consultant on the sign ordinance update. Committee members will be contacted soon to begin setting up meetings. 5. New Business: Capital Facilities Plan Briefing: Ryan introduced Tom Palmateer, Management Analyst. Ryan said that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) will be brought to Planning Commission to review in sections. Tom Palmateer gave some background information and noted that tonight s discussion will be on the General Government Section of the CFP. Tom went over the major projects indentified in the section: New Depot Museum, Jacob Smith House Parking and Pavilion, Senior Center Expansion, Gateway Project Civic Site, and Historic City Hall and Museum Repurpose. Tom noted that the City s finance department has reviewed the projects and determined that revenue is sufficient. Page 1 of 2

42 There was a discussion about grant eligibility. Staff pointed out that if grants don t come through as expected, the projects will be delayed. Projects can be amended to reflect the status of revenue. Project priority was discussed. Staff explained that the new Depot Museum is part of the Comprehensive Plan for Outdoor Recreation (parks plan) to fulfill cultural activity needs, Jacob Smith House parking and pavilion was identified in the parks plan for service and facility needs, the Senior Center Expansion is needed as the current facility is not sufficient to meet the needs of Lacey s senior citizen population, the Gateway project was identified out of the 1992 summary plan to fill a need for civic presence, the Historic City Hall/Museum repurpose was identified after the new Depot Museum is constructed and occupied, and the future projects were identified out of parks plan for future needs. The General Government section was described as a catch-all for projects that don t fit into other sections. There was a discussion about sources of revenue for projects and whether or not the development community is obligated to help fund projects for population growth. Staff explained that general services are not directly funded by developers but by the increase in general revenues resulting from growth and increased in assessed valuation; the revenue comes from sales tax and other sources. Fees collected through traffic mitigation and utility connection fees are assessed directly from new development proposals to mitigate needs of population growth. The Historic City Hall/Museum was discussed. The city has no plans for the building at this time but does intend to keep it for historical purposes. There was a discussion about the Senior Center parking lot project and if it will be pedestrian friendly and senior citizen oriented. Staff noted that it will have a higher ratio of ADA spaces. There was a discussion about budgeting for the upkeep of these projects. Staff explained that the expenditures are only for the capital construction projects and that operation and maintenance is paid out of the city s annual budget. Rebecca Lee asked for access to the budget that would give an overall view of the numbers to aid Planning Commission in their decision making and determine if the projects are practical. Rick said that it may be difficult to get specific numbers but that he should be able to provide general information at a future meeting. Debrief on Conference of Corridor Commissions Meeting: Planning Commissioners shared their observations of the conference. Everyone agreed it was very informative and interesting. There was a discussion about topics to discuss at a future conference. Envision Lacey Pleasant Glade/Central Planning Areas Open House: Ryan explained that Envision Lacey is part of the Comp Plan update process. The City and UGA have been split into four planning areas and meetings will be held in each area to discuss the Plan. Pleasant Glade is the first section to be addressed. An open house will be held from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, February 11, at Lacey Elementary. Planning Commissioners are being asked to act as docents at the open houses. 6. Communications and Announcements: Carolyn St. Claire said she is unable to attend the next Planning Commission meeting and staff agreed to hold off on discussing the street tree issue so that she can take part. 7. Next meeting: February 18, Adjournment: 7:20 p.m. Page 2 of 2

43 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBJECT: Planning Commission recommendation to amend the Street Merchant Ordinance, LMC RECOMMENDATION: Adopt recommended revisions to the Street Merchant Ordinance, LMC and also adopt new application fee for street merchant permits STAFF CONTACT: Scott Spence, City Manager Rick Walk, AICP, Director of Community Development ORIGINATED BY: Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Draft amended ordinance, LMC Minutes of November 5 th Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report to Planning Commission dated October 29, 2013 FISCAL NOTE: There will be no budget impacts as a result of this action PRIOR REVIEW: Land Use Committee Briefing on March 3, 2014 Planning Commission worksession on September 17, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing on November 5, 2013 BACKGROUND: At the September 19, 2013, Joint City Council-Planning Commission Worksession, the Community Development Department proposed the review of the Street Merchant Ordinance as an opportunity to gain efficiencies in our permitting process. The goal is to reduce demand on limited staff resources and provide clear timing and predictability service to the applicant. The review of the Street Merchant Ordinance was added to the Planning Commission work program. Currently street merchant applications go through the Site Plan Review (SPR) process. The SPR process provides a level of review and process that may be more extensive than required Page 1 of 3

44 for the typical scope and complexity of a street merchant application. As a result, the Community Development Department proposed several changes to the ordinance to provide a review process with greater efficiency and timeliness that is better matched to the scope of street merchant activity. The Site Plan Review (SPR) process is considered a Full Administrative Review and is designed for projects requiring both objective and subjective standards considering context of a particular project and application of standards. It includes detailed review of a project and application of conditions to address specific site circumstances. It involves both technical review, and a decision by the SPR Committee. This decision is published in The Olympian, informing the general public of a complete application. The cost of an SPR application is based on a sliding scale with several tiers based on the value of the proposal. The cost tiers are expected to reflect the complexity and the amount of review time required by the City. The current fee schedule sets the cost of an SPR application for the lowest tier at $ The SPR process will generally take two to three weeks from application to review by the SPR Committee, and depending on complexity may take additional time to reach a decision. An alternative process is Limited Administrative Review. This process is used for project types where proposed development is subject to clear and objective and non discretionary standards. In this process only technical staff needs to be involved, and notification requirements are not required. Activities falling under this process are well understood and predictable. Standards to protect surrounding land owners are codified and are applied to projects as a requirement for approval. Staff can make a decision on a limited administrative review as soon as verification of project details is known and can be reviewed against adopted standards. Examples of projects reviewed under the limited administrative review process include home occupations, building permits, tree removals and sign permits. There is no set cost for a limited administrative review. Most activities have a fee schedule specific to the review being preformed designed to cover about half of the actual costs. If the administrative review was required for this type of application it would be less time consuming for applicant, and less time consuming and expensive for staff to process. If limited administrative review is adopted to cover street merchant activities, the city should simultaneously adopt a new fee to cover this particular application type. The fee should address the average review and processing time necessary. The review of a street merchant permit application would be very similar to a land clearing application. The review of a typical application would be routed to planning, building, and public works staff by permit technicians. A combined 4 hours of review, administration and processing time would be necessary. Based on this, a fee of $ is recommended. This is the same fee as a land clearing permit application. Other topics that were discussed while the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance included a minimum distance between a commercial storefront and a street merchant specializing in the same product and updating the definitions to reflect the procedural change. Page 2 of 3

45 The distance requirement discussion evolved from the potential for a street merchant to be located immediately adjacent or in front of a storefront that services the same product. To prevent a direct conflict of competing products and overhead costs, the Planning Commission reviewed the option of establishing minimum distance to separate competing uses. Based on discussions at the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission recommends a 100-foot separation requirement. The Planning Commission also included an option to waive or reduce the requirement if the street merchant stand was located at a key pedestrian intersection or a planned street merchant pad. Also, with review of this update, the Planning Commission based on Community Development Department recommendation updated and developed new definitions to reflect the change to a limited review process and current terminology. New definitions were developed for the terms approving authority ; director ; designate food vehicle zones ; food vehicle ; outdoor food court ; public place ; street merchant structure ; and vending cart. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the amended ordinance (copy attached). Upon the close of the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed changes to the ordinances. Based on the discussion, the Planning Commission made a unanimous recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendments to LMC 16.70, Street Merchants, as described above. ADVANTAGES: 1. The proposed amendments will provide a more predictable, efficient and cost effective street merchant permitting process for applicants and City staff. 2. The proposed amended ordinance will provide clear standards for well designed, appropriately located and safe street merchant businesses to operate in Lacey. 3. The proposed ordinance will facilitate and provide guidance for the development of new small business opportunities. DISADVANTAGES: 1. None identified Page 3 of 3

46 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF LACEY AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO STREET MERCHANT REGULATIONS, AMENDING CHAPTERS , , AND , OF THE LACEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING APPENDIX A OF THE CITY S DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS AND APPROVING A SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION. WHEREAS, at the September 19, 2013 Joint Planning Commission-City Council meeting the City s Community Development Department proposed review of the City s Street Merchant Ordinance be added to the work program, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Street Merchant Ordinance and held a public hearing on November 5, 2013 to hear comment on the proposed amendments, and WHEREAS, at the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Commission made a unanimous recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendments, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed amendments to be in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Definitions. A. Approving authority Means the Site Plan Review Committee or the Director according to the provisions of Section B (Process for approval). B. Director shall refer to the Director of the Community Development Department, or his or her designee, that is responsible for administration of Limited Administrative review pursuant to Chapter 1 Section 1C of this Development Guidelines and Public Works Standards. C. Designated food vehicle zone is an area within a street designated for location of a food vehicles(s) by the Director of Public Works

47 D. Food vehicle means a licensed and operable motor vehicle or trailer used to serve, vend, or provide food or nonalcoholic beverages for human consumption from a fixed location or along a route in a public place. AE. Handcrafted goods means goods produced or created by the vendor from raw or basic materials. BF. Original art means art crafted by the vendor or by artists the vendor acts as agent to on consignment of the art work. CG. Outdoor shopping center activities and events means activities normally taking place in parking lots of shopping centers from time to time on a temporary basis. Activities include, but are not limited to, promotions or special showings and sale of boats and recreation vehicles or miscellaneous activities such as pony rides and carnival activities. Such activities attract consumers to the shopping center, both the travelling public and pedestrians in the area, and add flavor to the shopping experience. Activities do not significantly impede parking or circulation at the site or adversely affect permanent businesses in the area. H. Outdoor Food Court Means one location (Parking lot, plaza, or lot) where more than four (4) street merchants selling food have located offering a choice foods and venders. I. Public Place means public right-of-way and the space above or beneath its surface, whether or not opened or improved, including streets, avenues, ways, boulevards, drives, places, alleys, sidewalks, planting strips, squares, triangles, and plazas that are not privately owned. DJ. Retail stand means a small vending cart, or street merchant structure, food vehicle or temporary seasonal structure used for retail sale of approved street merchant merchandise. The retail stand cart or structure is operated from a fixed location within a parking lot, pedestrian plaza, public property, or right-of-way and designed and sized to be readily moved. EK. Street fair, outdoor food court or market means a location where multiple street merchants and activities are organized as one function, including but not - 2 -

48 limited to, one site, lot or parking lot designed or converted to accommodate multiple street venders on a permanent or seasonal basis, the Lacey Fun Fair or a seasonal farmers market. FL. Street merchant means a merchant selling goods from a fixed location within a parking lot, pedestrian plaza, public property or right-of-way using a vending cart, food vehicle, street merchant structure or temporary seasonal structure. M. Street merchant structure means a structure typically larger than a vending cart that is not intended to be moved by one vender. Such structure is intended to be setup and stationary in one location, is less than 200 square feet and is not permanently affixed to its location by a permanent foundation. Examples include an espresso stand, year round fruit and vegetable stand, or other similar building intended to be used for street merchant activity as defined in this chapter. GN. Temporary/Seasonal retail stand means a stand to sell seasonal retail items on a temporary basis. These include fireworks stands, if allowed, Christmas tree stands and local agricultural fruit stands. O. Vending cart means a movable cart that is used to serve, vend, or provide food, nonalcoholic beverages, or flowers. Section 2. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Licensing, and site plan review, and approval of street merchant application and approval required. A. All business activities shall meet requirements of Chapter 5.12 LMC for city business licensing. B. Site plan review approval shall be obtained from the city of Lacey pursuant to the full administrative review procedures contained in Section 1C.040 of the City of Lacey Development Guidelines and Public Works Standards: - 3 -

49 1B. No street merchant,, street fair, food court,, or market,, temporary/seasonal retail stand or outdoor shopping center activities and events shall be permitted to operate within the City of Lacey without first obtaining site plan approval pursuant to the requirements of Chapter LMC.the appropriate planning approval as follows: 1. Limited Administrative Review: Limited Administrative Review shall generally be required for street merchant activities that are minor in scope and involve use of a vending cart or food vehicle located on private property or a designated pedestrian plaza. A street merchant operating from a street merchant structure located in a parking lot may also qualify for this abbreviated review depending on the size of the area to be used and the scope of activity expected. These applications shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of Section 1C. 030 of the City of Lacey Development Guidelines and Public Works Standards. 2. Site Plan Review: Site Plan Review shall generally be required for street merchant activities that are larger in scope and activity than a single merchant operating from a vending cart including: a) Outdoor food courts, shopping center activities, and street fairs and markets that involve multiple (More than three) street merchants. b) Applications that are in public right of way that require location in a designated food vehicle zone. c) Applications that require special consideration because of location circumstances, size of street merchant structure or area, scope of activity, or potential impacts. These applications shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of Chapter (Site Plan Review)

50 3. Determining process: Based upon the individual characteristics of an application, considering location, size, and scope of use and potential impacts, the director may determine that a street merchant application shall be processed either as a Limited Administrative Review, or as a full Site Plan Review. This determination shall be based upon which process best matches the need for review of a project, considering it s individual and unique circumstances and shall be based upon the sole discretion of the Director. 2. All street merchants must operate from an approved retail stand or temporary/seasonal retail stand or approved street fair or market or as outdoor shopping center activities and events and must be approved by the site plan review committee. One combined approval may be given for street merchant activities within street fairs or markets or as part of an outdoor shopping center activity or event. C. Site plan reviewcomplete application and content:. Street merchant applications shall include the following information: 1. Ddetailed scale drawings of the location of the stand., 2. Tthe device to be used, materials specifications and with drawings showing all four sides of the vending device, color schemes and any logos, printing or signs which will be incorporated. Color schemes must be indicated on the drawings. For existing vending devices, color photographs may be substituted for drawings. 3. The application shall contain a plan for scheduled hours of operation for the season that includes time of day, days of week, months of the year, and scheduled closings. 4. Written approval of the landowner shall also be submitted at the time of application

51 D. Permitted street merchant activities. The site plan review committee Approving authority may only approve street merchant activities meeting the definition of retail stands and temporary/seasonal retail stands. Provided the committee Approving Authority may approve street fairs, outdoor food courts or markets, or outdoor shopping center activities and events for fixed temporary periods based upon findings consistent with the intent of this chapter and the approval process as outlined in Section B. E. Site plan review committeeapproving Authority consideration and decision. The Approving Authority, as described in section B, shall ensure the following items are satisfied when acting upon an application: 1. The site plan review committee shall review each application forthe proposal is consistent consistency with the standards and intent of this chapter. 2. The site plan review committee shall review each merchant s proposal with major emphasis upon how the proposal will enhance the attractiveness of the pedestrian environment in which it is located. 3. The proposed All street merchant activities shall be are designed, oriented and operated to serve pedestrians with the exception of a street merchant structure or temporary/seasonal retail stands located in a parking lots. F4. Based upon consideration of the application and its consistency with the intent and standards of this chapter, the committee Approving Authority may approve or deny an application. In approving an application, the committee Approving Authority may require any conditions on operation, location or design it deems necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter. G5. The committee Approving Authority may also administratively approve any variances from the standards section of this chapter it deems necessary to fully - 6 -

52 satisfy the intent of Chapter LMC to provide an exceptional pedestrian experience at strategic locations within the City. H6. When authorizing variances to retail stand criteria, the applicant should demonstrate to the committee sapproving Authority s satisfaction the approved design will be compatible with surrounding architecture, will add to the pedestrian desirability of the area, and will be a benefit to the neighborhood and zone in which it is located. Section 3. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Design and development standards for retail stands. A small rretail stands shall generally comply with the following requirements: A. Retail standsvending carts will normally not be more than sixty square feet provided the site plan review committee Approving Authority may approve any size of retail stand vending cart it determines meets the spirit and intent of this chapter. B. A Street Merchant structure shall not be more than 200 square feet in size. CB. A canopy or umbrella may be included with the a retail stand. The canopy or umbrella shall be of vinyl, canvas, or similar durable material. All parts of such umbrella or canopy must have a minimum of seven feet of vertical clearance to the ground. DC. Retail stand materials shall be low maintenance and cleanable, preferably painted and of non-corrosive metal. ED. Temporary/seasonal retail stands may be of the size necessary to carry out their temporary operations as approved by the site plan review committee Approving Authority. FE. Each retail stand shall be a self-contained unit; provided, however that selfcontained electrical power generators are not permitted unless the Approving - 7 -

53 Authority site plan review committee determines noise impacts can be mitigated. Utility service connections may be permitted at permanent street merchant pads at the discretion of the City. Electrical service connections may be permitted by a property owner leasing space to a street merchant or by the adjacent property owner and when the following requirements are met: 1. Electrical lines are not allowed overhead or lying on the sidewalk. 2. The outlet location must be placed outside the walkways which are accessible to public and private use. 3. Length of electrical hookup must be within fifteen feet of the stand. 4. No extension cords will be allowed. 5. Hookup must be permanently wired to the retail stand and meet National Electrical Code requirements as to type, size and grounding, terminating in an approved outside weatherproof type receptacle. 6. Each retail stand shall require an electrical permit unless previously approved, and will require inspection prior to operation of the stand. GF. Advertising signs may only be placed on the cart. Provided street merchants selling food or non-alcoholic beverages within pedestrian plazas may have one sandwich board sign with a menu and prices which would be limited to two feet wide and four feet high. Such sandwich board sign must be located within the pedestrian plaza and oriented to pedestrians at the site. HG. All required licenses and permits issued by the City of Lacey must be displayed in a prominent, visible manner. IH. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain necessary Health Department licenses and to adhere to best practices for food handling when undertaking street merchant activities involving the preparation and serving of food. Retail stand operations must have a permit from the Thurston County Health Department when required and must comply with all applicable Health Department requirements

54 JI. All persons conducting a retail stand business within the City must keep the site clean and orderly at all times and pick up any refuse or debris and clean up liquid spillage deposited by any person using the business location. Additionally, all such persons shall provide a refuse container for litter. This container shall be of a design approved by the City and must be emptied on a regular basis. KJ. Support equipment and accessories shall generally be self-contained within the retail stand. Support equipment and accessories must not be placed so as to impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic or distract from the pedestrian experience. LK. Retail stands selling food within a pedestrian plaza may have accessory seating and tables. Retail stands selling art and crafts may have merchandise displays set up adjacent to the retail stand for pedestrian view only. Art and craft displays shall be approved by the site plan review committee Approving Authority only when the site plan review committee it determines such accessories will enhance the pedestrian experience at the site and be compatible with the intent of the zone and neighborhood in which it is located. ML. Noise-making devices designed to attract attention and loud shouting or yelling to attract attention are prohibited. NM. All persons conducting a retail stand business shall obey any order of a police officer to temporarily move such retail stand to avoid congestion or obstruction of the surrounding area for pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic. ON. All retail stands shall have fire extinguisher(s) available according to currently adopted Fire Code requirements. P. Sustainable and creative designs are encouraged. Q. Street Merchant designs that are fund and add interest to the street are encouraged. Section 4. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: - 9 -

55 Approved retail stand merchandise. The following merchandise may be sold from retail stands: A. Food B. Non-alcoholic beverages C. Newspapers and magazines D. Original art and handcrafted goods E. Other items the Approving Authority site plan review committee determines are appropriate to pedestrian areas that will enhance the pedestrian experience. Section 5. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: General location standards. A. Retail stands may only be located in the following zones: 1. All commercial zones 2. All light industrial zones 3. Business park zone 4. Mixed high density corridor and mixed moderate density corridor 5. Along arterials and collectors at key multimodal intersections in pocket parks or pedestrian plazas as approved by the Approving Authority site plan review committee based upon findings that it will enhance the local pedestrian experience. 6. Open space institutional zones

56 B. Retail stand locations shall be compatible with the pedestrian and the vehicular nature of the zone, the use of the right-of-way as a public thoroughfare, the use of parking lots as public parking areas, and/or the use of an open air plaza. The site shall be located to enhance the pedestrian nature of the zone and shall not be located so as to attract or serve vehicular traffic. C. Temporary/seasonal retail stands may be located to attract and serve vehicle traffic. D. In determining whether or not the proposed location would be permitted, the following criteria shall be considered: 1. The type and intensity of the proposed use and the type and intensity of existing uses; 2. The width of the sidewalk, pedestrian plaza or parking lot in which it is to be located; 3. The proximity and location of existing street furniture, including but not limited to signposts, lampposts, bus shelters, benches, phone booths, trees, newsstands, as well as the presence of bus stops and truck loading areas; 4. Established or proposed pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns; 5. The number of available retail stand sites in a given area or zone of the City and the number of existing retail stands in such area. 6. Other factors deemed relevant by the Approving Authoritysite plan review committee, consistent with the purpose of this chapter and intent of the zone proposed for the use. E. The retail stand and location shall promote the diversity of retail stand activity; F. The site and retail stand together shall not create a pedestrian or vehicular traffic hazard;

57 G. The retail stand shall be compatible with uses in the general vicinity and adjacent properties; H. The retail stand location shall promote the pedestrian nature of the general area in which it is located; I. The retail stand location shall be compatible with the public interest in the use of the sidewalk as a public right-of-way and the use of a public or private parking lot for the primary intended use of vehicular parking and, as such, shall not endanger the public health, safety and welfare. Section 6. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section Specific location standards. A. When the abutting owner or tenant has submitted to the site plan review committee written request for denial or restrictions of the retail stand site, the site plan review committee shall give due consideration to the impact that the retail stand would have on abutting property owners business and duty to maintain the sidewalk area. No retail stand shall be placed abutting within 100 feet or fronting a property of a business which specializes in an item that the retail stand offers for sale unless the applicant owns the establishment or has written consent from the proprietor of the establishment, e.g., a retail stand selling ice cream may not be located abutting within 100 feet of an established ice cream parlor. This 100 foot distance restriction shall be measured using the distance of the route of access between the two uses (the route someone would walk or drive). B. If neighboring owners have submitted written requests for denials or restrictions, the site plan review committee shall give similar consideration based on distance from the site and impacts to such neighboring owners.the distance requirement of Section A may be reduced or waived if the street merchant is locating adjacent to a key pedestrian intersection and in a designated pedestrian plaza designed to accommodate a street merchant, or other circumstance related to the

58 context of the application that make a lesser buffer appropriate to meet the intent of this ordinance. C. Each retail stand shall be placed so it does not obstruct or impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. D. Each retail stand shall be limited to one assigned location. In the event that two or more applications for the same location are received, the general locational standards of this chapter shall be used to determine which application, if approved, shall be assigned the location. Only one permit may be issued for each approved location and, normally, no permit will be issued for a location within fifty feet of another approved location which already has a permit issued. Provided the Approving Authority site plan review committee may vary from this standard where it finds that the pedestrian volume can support multiple venders and the pedestrian experience will be enhanced by such a closer location of retail stands. The distance requirement does not apply to a site designated as a street merchant food court (where a site is designed to accommodate a variety of street merchants to provide food choices) or outdoor street market (to accommodate multiple street merchants with a variety of wares), in an area of high volume pedestrian use. E. Only one retail stand site shall be approved for each pedestrian plaza or pocket park or parking lot unless the Approving Authority site plan review committee finds that additional stand(s) would be consistent with the intent of this chapter to promote the pedestrian experience and will not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation or be detrimental to the intent and vision for the surrounding zone. F. Any retail stand located in a parking lot shall comply with the following minimum standards: 1. The retail stand shall not block entrances and exits to the parking lot or fire exit doors of any buildings; 2. A retail stand shall only be permitted in parking lots containing more than twenty parking stalls;

59 23. Retail stands should normally not occur in parking spaces directly in front of entrances or windows of the building; 34. The retail stand shall comply with all other applicable City ordinances. G. No retail stand shall be located within eight feet of an abutting property. Section 7. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Location and leasing of city property for retail stand activities. The Approving Authority site plan review committee may designate approved retail stand sites in any zone approved for such use on publicly owned parks, pedestrian plazas or City right-of-way on a sidewalk or streetside in a designated food vehicle zone. In doing so, the number of approved sites shall be limited to what the Approving Authority site plan review committee determines is appropriate to the pedestrian experience of the site and consistent with the intent and vision of the zone in which it is located. The Approving Authority site plan review committee must also find that the location of such retail stand space will not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic flow or create any undue hazard and will generally meet location criteria of Sections 050 and 060. In such cases, the City may competitively lease such spaces to street vendors consistent with policy for leasing of vending spaces to private entrepreneurs in City parks. Section 8. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Permit limitations. A. A retail stand site plan review approval may not be transferred to another person or to a location other than that stated on the permit. B. Retail stands issued for public right-of-way or public property shall normally be reviewed once every year and may be extended each year for additional one-year increments if the site plan review committee Approving Authority finds that the retail stand has been operated in a way to enhance the pedestrian experience and is still a

60 benefit to the zone in which it is located. When granting extensions, the Approving Authority committee may attach additional conditions to an approval it deems necessary to comply with this chapter or new City regulations. This shall not prohibit the City from entering into multiple year contracts if such is considered appropriate for the site and consistent with City policy. C. Any permit or approval issued by the City for a retail stand on private property does not affect the permittee s responsibility to secure and maintain a contract or written approval from the property owner. Section 9. Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Permit revocation. The Approving Authority site plan review committee may immediately revoke or suspend a permit or deny either the issuance or renewal thereof if the committee finds that: A. The applicant or permittee has violated or failed to meet any of the provisions of this chapter or conditions of the permit; B. The cart retail stand or operation is detrimental to the surrounding businesses or to the public due to either appearance or condition of the stand; C. Any required licenses have been suspended, revoked or cancelled; D. The applicant or permittee does not have a current, effective insurance policy in the minimum amount provided in this chapter; E. The scheduled hours of operation are not followed; or F. The property owner has withdrawn approval or revoked the contract allowing the use on his/her property. Upon denial, suspension or revocation, the Approving Authority site plan review committee shall notify the applicant or permittee in writing of the action the Approving

61 Authority committee has taken and the reasons therefore. After giving such notice by mail or in person, if the retail stand has not been removed within fifteen days, the City may cause a removal of any retail stand found in violation of this chapter, and is authorized to store such stand until the owner thereof shall redeem it by paying the removal and storage charges. Section 10. Appendix A of the development guidelines and public works standards are hereby amended as set forth in the attachment hereto. Section 11. The Summary attached hereto is hereby approved for publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, at a regularly-called meeting thereof, held this day of, CITY COUNCIL Approved as to form: By: Mayor City Attorney Attest: City Clerk

62 SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION ORDINANCE NO CITY OF LACEY The City Council of the City of Lacey, Washington, passed on, Ordinance No., entitled AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO STREET MERCHANT REGULATIONS, AMENDING CHAPTERS , , AND , OF THE LACEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING APPENDIX A OF THE CITY S DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS AND APPROVING A SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION. The main points of the Ordinance are described as follows: 1. The Ordinance amends provisions of the Lacey Municipal Code relating to street merchants and sets a Limited Administrative Street Merchant Review fee of $ The Ordinance approves this Summary for Publication. A copy of the full text of this Ordinance will be mailed without charge to any person requesting the same from the City of Lacey. Published:,

63 LACEY FEE SCHEDULE Effective January 1May 16, 2014 Amusement Devices/Games of Skill Business License In City Out of City Temporary Home Occupation Carnival Flea Market/Swap Meet Flea Market/Swap Meet/Sellers Permit Mall Sales - Temporary Music Machine $10/Machine $25/One Time $10/One Time $50/30 days $25/One Time $100/year $50/3 days ($250 Max/Year) $0.50/day $25 + $.50/day $10/Machine Music Machine Vendors $25/$10 Notary $3 NSF Check or Returned Check $20 Pawnbrokers & Secondhand Dealers Less than 50% of Sales $50 90% Sales Less than $10 $50 Other than above $150 Solicitors $50 Taxi-Cab & For-Hire Drivers $25/$10 Taxi-Cab & For-Hire Vehicle $30/$10 Wreckers & Tow Truck License $25/truck Wreckers Base License $50 Fingerprinting $10/card Immigration/VISA letters (includes records check) $5 Copies of Police Department Reports $0.15 per page (for reports over 10 pages) Revised 01/01/201405/16/2014 A - 1

64 Concealed Pistol License Original License (valid for 5 Years) $55.25 Renewal License (valid for 5 Years) $32 Late Renewal License $42 Replacement License $10 Document Recording Fee (from Thurston County) $62/1 st Page + $1.00/add.page **Right-of-Way Access Permit $170 Housemoving $200 Disruption of New Streets Street or Alley Vacations x=1st/Yr 4x=2nd/Yr 3x=3rd/Yr 2x=4th/Yr 1x=5th/Yr $215 + Up to 1/2 Assessed Value LOTT Reserve Capacity Charge $4, *General Facility Charge - Sewer *Front Footage - Sewer $3,218/ERU $76.75/LF *General Facility Charge - Water /8" = $5,449 1" = $10, /2" = $21,744 2" = $35,512 3" = $66,998 4" = $111,666 6" = $223,102 **Service Connections Meter Only 5/8" $359 1" $ /2" $978 2" $1,591 3" Cost + 15% Tap & Meter 5/8" $1,111 1" $1, /2" $1,931 2" $3,255 More than 2" Cost+15% S.T.E.P. Tap Per Annual bid. Call Public Works. **Reinspection of Water Line (From Bldg. to Meter) $64 Revised 01/01/201405/16/2014 A - 2

65 **Hydrant Meter Rental 2-1/2" $ per month or $6.20 per day + Water Cost $945 Deposit (Refundable) on Meter Water Turn On After Turn Off Mon.-Fri. 8:00 am - 4:30 pm *Front Footage - Water $12.50/trip $44.90/LF Storm Water Accumulative Service Charge for Undeveloped Parcels SF Residential Commercial Cumulative fee 1/1/87 to 6/30/90 $60.90 $ Monthly Fee 7/1/90 to 3/31/92 $1.64/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 4/1/92 to 3/31/93 $1.89/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 4/1/93 to 3/31/94 $2.00/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 4/1/94 to 3/31/95 $2.10/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 4/1/95 to 3/31/96 $2.22/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 4/1/96 to 3/31/97 $2.33/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 4/1/97 to 3/31/98 $2.44/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 4/1/98 to 3/31/99 $2.56/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 4/1/99 to 3/31/2000 $2.65/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 4/1/00 to 12/31/2006 $2.76/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 1/1/07 to 12/31/2008 $2.86/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 1/1/09 to 12/31/10 $3.28/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 1/1/11 to 12/31/11 $3.28/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 1/1/12 to 12/31/13 $3.38/Acre Sliding Scale Monthly Fee 1/1/14 to 12/31/14 $3.68/Acre Sliding Scale Blueprint Copies (Based on Time & Materials) D Size (24" x 36") $2.00 each plus $37.00/hour Parking Lot Construction Permit spaces - $ spaces - $100 **Plan Check & Inspection **Plan Check: spaces - $ up spaces - $130 Water Sewer $202/1st 150' + $.25/LF thereafter $202/1st 150' + $.25/LF thereafter Revised 01/01/201405/16/2014 A - 3

66 Street or Street with curb, gutter & sidewalk Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk only Storm Lighting Signals $202/1st 150' + $.35/LF thereafter $202/1st 150' + $.35/LF thereafter $310 Per Report $202 + $11.67/pole $872/Inter. Resubmittal Latecomers Review - Agreement Development $965 + $108/Hour after 10 Hours Agreement Administration $108/Hr Starting with 2nd submittal (1 Hr. min.) $149 per Transaction Processing **Inspection: Water Sewer Sewer - STEP System (Residence) Street Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk Storm Lighting Signals Right-of-Way Access: Overhead Underground $228/1st 150' + $.70/LF thereafter $228/1st 150' + $.70/LF thereafter $335/Unit $228/1st 150' + $.55/LF thereafter $228/1st 150' + $.55/LF thereafter $228 ea/retn-detn area + $.55/LF pipe $228 + $24.37/pole $1,817 / intersection $218/1st 150' + $.07/LF thereafter $218/1st 150' + $.10/LF thereafter **Development Guidelines (Paper Copy and a CD) $99 **Capital Facilities Plan $38 **Traffic Count Report $35 **Traffic Modeling Fee: Developments generating Trips $833 Development generating over 100 Trips $833 + $102/Hour after 8 Hours Revised 01/01/201405/16/2014 A - 4

67 Building Permit Fees: TOTAL VALUATION FEE $1.00 to $ $23.50 $ to $2, $2, to $25, $25, to $50, $50, to $100, $100, to $500, $500, to $1,000, $1,000, and up $23.50 for the first $ plus $3.05 for each additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $2, $69.25 for the first $2, plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25, $ for the first $25, plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50, $ for the first $50, plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100, $ for the first $100, plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500, $3, for the first $500, plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000, $5, for the first $1,000, plus $3.65 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours 2. Reinspection fees 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated 4. Additional Plan Review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans 5. For use of Outside Plan Review Building Plan Check Fees: All Residential & Commercial Building Single Family of 1400 Sq Ft or Less = 25% of Building Permit Fee Amount Single Family exceeding 1,400 Sq Ft = 50% of Building Permit Fee Amount All other Buildings = 65% of Building Permit Fee Amount Building - Previously Approved $25 Mechanical Permit Fees: CITY OF LACEY MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance and Heaters 1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit $ For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired, been $7.25 cancelled, or finaled Unit Fee schedule (Note: The following do not include permit-issuing fee.) 1. Furnaces For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kw) $14.80 For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kw) $18.20 For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent $14.80 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor-mounted $14.80 unit heater Revised 01/01/201405/16/2014 A - 5

68 2. Appliance Vents For the installation, relocation, or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit $ Repairs or Additions For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical Code $ Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3 horsepower (10.6 kw), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kw) $14.70 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 3 horsepower (10.6 kw) to and including 15 horsepower (52.7 kw), or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kw) to and including 500,000 Btu/h (146.6 kw) $27.15 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower (52.7 kw) to and including 30 horsepower (105.5 kw), or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h (146.6 kw) to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kw) $37.25 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5 kw) to and including 50 horsepower (176 kw), or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kw) to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kw) $55.45 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower (176 kw), or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kw) $ Air Handlers For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (4719 L/s), including ducts attached thereto Note: This fee does not apply to an air handling unit which is a portion of a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code $10.65 For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm (4719 L/s) $ Evaporative Coolers For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $ Ventilation and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $7.25 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system $10.65 authorized by a permit For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such $10.65 hood 8. Incinerators For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator $18.20 For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type incinerator $ Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but not classified in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in the table $10.65 Other Inspections and Fees 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours, per hour (minimum charge two hours) $49.50* 2. Reinspection fees assessed, per inspection $49.50* 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour (minimum charge one-half hour) $49.50* 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans or to plans which an initial review has been completed (minimum charge one-half hour) $49.50* *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved Mechanical Plan Check Fee: Revised 01/01/201405/16/ % of Fee A - 6

69 Plumbing Permit Fees: CITY OF LACEY PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance 1. For the issuance of each plumbing permit $ For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired, been cancelled, or finaled $7.25 Unit Fee Schedule (Note: The following do not include permit-issuing fee) 1. Fixtures and Vents For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping and backflow prevention thereof) $9.80 For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $ Sewers, Disposal Systems and Interceptors For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $24.65 For each cesspool $37.25 For each private sewage disposal system $74.50 For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps $19.90 Rainwater systems per drain (inside building) $ Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping or water-treatment equipment, or both, $4.75 each For each water heater including vent For vents only, see Mechanical Permit Fee Table $ Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one to five outlets $6.15 For each additional outlet over five, each $ Lawn Sprinklers, Vacuum Breakers and Backflow Protection Devices For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow protection devices thereof $14.80 For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers or backflow protection devices not included in Item 1: 1 to 5 devices $12.30 Over 5 devices, each $2.25 For each backflow-protection device other than atmospheric-type vacuum breakers: 2 inches (50.8 mm) and smaller $12.30 Over 2 inches (50.8 mm) $ Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa: Public Pool $91.25 Public Spa $60.75 Private Pool $60.75 Private Spa $ Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Plumbing Code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code $9.80 Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours, per hour (minimum charge two hours) $49.50* Revised 01/01/201405/16/2014 A - 7

70 2. Reinspection fees assessed, per inspection $49.50* 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour (minimum charge onehalf hour) $49.50* 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans or to plans for which an initial review has been completed (minimum charge one-half hour) $49.50* *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. Plumbing Plan Check Fee 25% of Fee City of Lacey Grading Permit Fees: 50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less $ to 100 cubic yards (40 to 76.5 m3) to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 to m3)- $37.00 for the first 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3) plus $17.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards(76.5 m3) or fraction thereof. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 to m3)- $ for the first 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3), plus $14.50 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards ( to m3)- $ for the first 10,000 cubic yards ( m3), plus $66.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards ( m3) or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards ( m3) or more- $ for the first 100,000 cubic yards ( m3), plus $36.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards ( m3) or fraction thereof. Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspection outside of normal business hours, per hour (minimum charge-two hours)$49.50* 2. Reinspections fees assessed $ Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour (minimum charge-one-half hour) $49.50* The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project. *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. Grading Plan Check Fees: 50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards (40 to 76.5 m3) $ to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 to m3) $ ,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 to m3) $ ,001 to 100,000 cubic yards ( to m3)- $49.25 for the first 10,000 cubic yards ( m3), plus $24.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards ( m3) or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards ( to m3)- $ for the first 100,000 cubic yards ( m3), plus $13.25 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards ( m3) or fraction thereof. 200,001 cubic yards ( m3) or more- $ for the first 200,000 cubic yards ( m3), plus $7.25 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards ( m3) or fraction thereof. Revised 01/01/201405/16/2014 A - 8

71 Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans or to plans for which an initial review has been completed $49.50* *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. Electrical Permit Fee Electrical Plan Check Fee Per Wash. State L&I Fees Per L&I (39% of Fee) Mobile Home Placement Permit Single Wide $100 Double Wide $125 Triple Wide $150 Premanufactured Addition $50 ***Planning Fees: Appeal Administrative Determination to Hearings Examiner DGPWS 1D $529 Appeal Administrative Determination of Hearings Examiner to Legislative Body DGPWS 1D $529 Appeal Administrative Determination on SPR/SS to Hearings Examiner DGPWS 1D $945 Appeal Hearings Examiner Determination on SPR/SS to Legislative Body DGPWS 1D $945 Binding Site Plan $639 + $35/Lot Boundary Line Adjustment $272 Comp. Plan Amendment $1689 Comp. Plan Amendment w/rezone $2530 Conditional Use $1585 Condomunium $639 + $35/Lot Design Review Application: Commercial $421 Multifamily $222 Residential - single family or accessory dwelling $66 Mixed Use $320 Environmental Checklist $271 Environmental Impact Statement Variable Hr. Rate Revised 01/01/201405/16/2014 A - 9

72 Landclearing $132 Plus Tree Professional Costs Limited Administrative Street Merchant Review $132 Planned Residential Development Preliminary $1890+$35/unit Planned Residential Development Final $1472 PRD Extensions $895 Presubmission Conferences FREE Rezone Map $2109 Shoreline Conditional Use $1630 Shoreline Extension $798 Shoreline Master Program Amendment $1692 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) $1788 Shoreline Text Amendment $1472 Shoreline Variance $944 Short Plat Preliminary $845 + $114/lot Short Plat Final $845 + $114/lot Site Plan Review $0-250,000 = $528 $250,001-1,000,000 = $1054 $1,000,001 & up = $2108 Site Plan Review by Hearings Examiner $2108 Subdivision Preliminary Subdivision Final $ /lot $ $35/lot Subdivision Resubmittal/Extension $529 Townhouse Development Application $ $34/Unit Variance $845 Village Center Application (including changing zoning maps) $4219 Wetland Approval Review by SPR Committee $529 Revised 01/01/201405/16/2014 A - 10

73 Wetland Approval Review by Hearings Examiner in conjunction with other Land Use Application $1054 Wetland Approval Review by Hearings Examiner $2108 Zoning Text Amendment $1217 Annual License Fee Schedule: Regular Senior Citizen Discount (RCW (5)(B)(ii) Dogs, not spayed/neutered $28.00 $28.00 Dogs, spayed/neutered or under 6 months of age $16.00 $6.00 Cats, not spayed/neutered $18.00 $18.00 Cats, spayed/neutered or under 6 months of age $10.00 $4.00 Service dog for blind, hearing impaired or physically No Fee disabled person No Fee Police Dog No Fee No Fee Duplicate license tag $3.00 $3.00 * Fee adjusted annually on January 1 by an amount equal to the increase in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index or by 6 percent, whichever is higher. ** Fee adjusted on July 1, 1997 and annually thereafter in an amount equal to the average salary increase accruing to Public Works Department employees during the prior 12 months. *** Fee adjusted on July 1, 1997 and annually thereafter in an amount equal to the average salary increase accruing to Community Development Department employees during the prior 12 months. Revised 01/01/201405/16/2014 A - 11

74 Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Gail Madden. MINUTES Lacey Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, November 5, :30 p.m. Lacey City Hall Council Chambers, 420 College Street SE Planning Commission members present: Gail Madden, Vasiliy Stupin, Ken Mitchell, Richard Sovde, and Mike Beehler. Staff present: Dave Burns, Rick Walk, Ryan Andrews, Tom Stiles, Roger Schoessel, Jason Simmonds, and Leah Bender. Gail Madden noted a quorum present. Also present: Planning Commission applicants Paul Enns, Cathy Murcia, and Curt Angell. Richard Sovde made a motion, seconded by Ken Mitchell, to approve the agenda for tonight s meeting. The motion carried. There were no minutes to approve as the previous meeting was the Envision Lacey Open House. 1. Public Comments: None. 2. Commission Member s Report: Mike Beehler reported on the last Council meeting he attended. The Tanglewilde East sewer project was on the agenda and he found it interesting. Vasiliy Stupin expressed that he was very pleased with the Envision Lacey Open House and thought it was a great success. 3. Director s Report: None. 4. Public Hearing: Amendments to Zoning Code Chapter Street Merchants: Gail opened the public hearing at 5:35 p.m. No members of the public were present. Dave Burns noted that he sent the packet to an interested street merchant and thought they would attend the hearing, he assumed the person was satisfied with the amendments. Dave distributed a new version of the draft ordinance that included comments from Public Works Director Scott Egger. Dave explained that the amended ordinance will streamline the process for street merchants. He also noted that staff amended the buffer provision from 500 feet to 100 feet with flexibility to reduce the buffer depending on the context of the application. Dave went over Scott Egger s comments. It was decided that under determining process, the wording would be changed to Based upon criteria in items 1 and 2 above, the Director may determine Pursuant to Planning Commission s request, staff discussed health issues and regulations with the Health Department and learned that there is no flexibility on the Health Department s regulations. Dave said that this needs to be a regional discussion with the County Commissioners. There was a discussion about the phrase best practices for food handling from an earlier version of the draft and how that would be enforced. It was agreed that the more recent proposed wording, It will be the applicant s responsibility to get necessary Health Department approvals would be best. There was a discussion about the use of public funds. Dave explained that it is a pretty common practice to allow street merchants within right-of-way and the city is trying to encourage specific locations for food vendors to make the downtown area more vibrant and pedestrian friendly. It was noted that there is no mention in the ordinance about recycling and composting. Dave said something can be added that encourages recycling opportunities. There was a discussion as to whether the ordinance would prevent children s lemonade stands and open the city up to bigger problems. Staff pointed out that the definitions make it clear what types of businesses are regulated under the ordinance. Richard Sovde made a motion to refer the amended ordinance to Council for adoption; Vasiliy seconded the motion with the inclusion of the new comments regarding Health Department, staff recommended changes, and comments regarding recycling. The motion carried. 5. Old Business: Update of Development Guidelines Chapter 2-8: Tom Stiles introduced Chapter 5 Storm Drainage and went over the major changes. A provision for the separation between stormwater facilities and other utilities has been added. Requirement to add pet waste stations is included. There was a discussion on how to get people to properly dispose of pet waste. Page 1 of 2

75 Regarding the landscaping considerations, it was suggested that there be a link to another document that lists specific requirements rather than consult City staff for additional details Definition of responsible entity was discussed. Staff pointed out that it is the HOA or property owner. Tom went over major changes made to Chapter 7 Sanitary Sewer. Tom noted that community S.T.E.P. systems are no longer permitted. Staff explained how S.T.E.P. systems work, clarified the difference between community and individual systems, and noted that the City maintains individual systems. Tom said the next discussion will cover Chapter 3 General Public Works Considerations and Chapter 4 Transportation. Debrief Envision Lacey Open House: Rick Walk gave some background information on the Envision Lacey program. Rick noted that a website has been created and that the results of the survey questionnaires and comments from the open house will be available on that website. Staff emphasized that the questionnaire was not a scientific survey but was designed to get people engaged and to obtain general information as a starting point. Planning Commissioners shared their thoughts and observations on the open house. Overall there was a positive response to the turnout. Rick noted that a thank you message and information regarding the website and survey results will be sent to people who signed in at the open house. 6. New Business: Briefing Street Tree Ordinance: Ryan Andrews introduced Jason Simmonds, the city s Parks and Facilities Supervisor, and gave some background information on the street tree ordinance. Ryan noted that the city has not had a consolidated set of regulations regarding street trees. A suggestion was made to add a section for definitions. Ryan pointed out that the ordinance clarifies the permit process, maintenance responsibilities, tree topping, responsibility of adjacent property owners, public nuisance, and enforcement. There was a discussion about the appeals process. Ryan said he will add a section to the ordinance to clarify the appeals process. The importance of emphasizing proper planting and use of appropriate species was stressed. Rick also noted that problems can be addressed with proper inspections. There was a discussion about the funding mechanism, and the fact that HOAs contribute to that fund yet are still responsible for maintenance. Staff explained that funding comes from transportation and general funds, and Rick will confirm this. It was noted that basically the city s lack of funding causes a burden on HOA s and homeowners, and that Council should consider funds a priority. Rick pointed out that the city will continue to maintain what it has always maintained, and HOA s will continue to maintain what they have always maintained. Ryan said the wording will need to be amended to reflect that. Richard Sovde made a motion, seconded by Vasiliy Stupin, to refer to Council with the suggestion that they refer to a team of people to explore ways the city can pay for it. There was a discussion about other amenities in the right-of-way and how they are maintained. Gail noted that a formal motion is not required at this time. Richard withdrew his motion so long as Planning Commission will continue to discuss and explore the equity issue. 7. Communications and Announcements: Rick Walk announced that a multi-family tax exemption program will be discussed at the next meeting. 8. Next meeting: November 19, Adjournment: 7:35 p.m. Page 2 of 2

76 memo Date: October 29, 2013 To: Lacey Planning Commission From: Rick Walk, AICP, Director of Community development David R. Burns, AICP, Principal Planner Subject: Hearing for Amendment of the Street Merchant Ordinance A. Introduction: The Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to the street merchant ordinance at its September 17, 2013 meeting date and had two suggestions. These included reevaluation of the 500 foot buffer requirement between a street merchant and permanent merchants selling the same items, and discussing health regulations with the Health Department to determine if more flexibility could be provided for preparation of fresh food at the retail stand. Based upon Planning Commission discussion, staff has modified buffer requirements and simplified provisions related to Health Department review. The following section on Background/Analysis provides an overview of the proposed changes and the revisions recently accomplished to address Planning Commission concerns. B. Background/Analysis: 1. Process: Street merchant applications are currently processed through the Site Plan Review (SPR) process. This is considered a Full Administrative Review and is designed for projects requiring both objective and subjective standards considering context of a particular project and application of standards. It includes detailed review of a project and application of conditions to address specific site circumstances. It involves both technical staff review, and review by the SPR Committee that includes the Community Development Director, Public Works Director and Representative from the City Manager s office. It also includes newspaper notice of a complete application advertised to the general public. The cost of an SPR application is based on a sliding scale with several tiers based on the value of the proposal. The cost tiers are expected to reflect the complexity and the amount of review time required by the City. The current fee schedule sets the cost of an SPR for the lowest tier at $ The SPR process will generally take two to three weeks from application to review by the SPR Committee, and depending on complexity may take additional time to reach a decision. Page 1

77 An alternative process is Limited Administrative Review. This process is used for project types where proposed development is subject to clear and objective and non discretionary standards. In this process only technical staff needs to be involved, and notification requirements are not required. Activities falling under this process are well understood and predictable. Standards to protect surrounding land owners are codified and are applied to projects as a requirement for approval. Staff can make a decision on a limited administrative review as soon as verification of project details is known and can be reviewed against adopted standards. An example of a project type where Limited Administrative Review is used is a home occupation request. The home occupation is subject to set standards designed to make it consistent with land use expectations for a residential environment. There is no set cost for a limited administrative review. Most activities have a fee schedule specific to the review being preformed designed to cover about half of the actual costs. A limited administrative review is more appropriately scaled to the scope of a street merchant activity. If the administrative review was required for this type of application it would be less time consuming for applicant, and less time consuming and expensive for staff to process. If limited administrative review is proposed to cover street merchant activities, the city could adopt a new fee to cover this particular application type that would be significantly below what an SPR costs. Just elimination of a newspaper notification alone would reduce the cost by several hundred dollars. At its September 17, 2013 worksession there was Planning Commission consensus that Limited Administrative Review was the best process to handle street merchant applications. The ordinance has been written to incorporate this preferred process. 2. Impacts to permanent merchants: A top concern in development of the original ordinance and its adoption was to ensure a street merchant activity did not interfere and compete with established businesses. During development of the ordinance, the commercial community voiced the concern that it is unfair to expect commercial retail establishments to pay for infrastructure and then face competition from a street merchant that does not have to share the costs that are associated with the commercial area where the street merchant wants to locate. In development of a commercial business location, established businesses typically have had to put in landscaping, provide parking stalls and often pay to widen sidewalks and streets. There is also typically a large overhead for maintaining commercial sites. There were two striking examples of this concern for fairness used during consideration of the ordinance. One was an ice cream vender that had located in front of Baskin Robin and sold ice-cream at prices undercutting the permanent merchant. A second was flower venders that would locate on street corners for holidays and offer deep discounts on flowers undercutting local florists on those weekends of the year permanent florists relied on most for sales. Because of this concern, provisions were placed into the ordinance Page 2

78 requiring consideration of this issue and prohibiting a street merchant from locating in an area that would threaten a permanent merchant selling similar items. When properly regulated and located the benefits of street merchants are well established. Street merchants provide another dimension to street life and infuse new energy, value, interest and functionality into the street or pedestrian plaza where they locate. Since adoption of the ordinance in 2001, the City has processed over a dozen applications with no major controversy or issues. As such, it is expected there is a higher comfort level in our community, in regard to these activities, than there was when it was adopted over a decade ago. Given this situation, it is appropriate to consider a new process for review that can be better scaled to street merchant activity. The first draft of the ordinance had a provision for a 500 foot buffer between a street merchant and a permanent merchant selling the same items to address the conflict between street merchants and permanent merchants. However, Planning Commission discussion at its September 17, 2013 worksession suggested this was arbitrary and would eliminate too much area within commercial zones that the city might want to promote street merchant activity. The Planning Commission requested a review of the buffering provision. Based upon Planning Commission discussion the staff reviewed the buffering provision. The Municipal Research Services Center has information related to this issue and lists several jurisdictions that incorporate a buffering strategy. Generally buffering requirements fall within a range of 0 to 250 feet. The City of Seattle has a 50 foot requirement while the city of Kent has a 200 foot requirement. Based upon review of these other ordinances the draft ordinance has been modified to reduce the buffer to 100 feet, with the ability of the administrator to reduce the buffer further depending upon the context of the application. This should provide for the original concern for separation, while providing opportunity for street merchants to locate in commercial areas. 3. Health Department Regulation: As discussed at the September 17, 2013 meeting the Thurston County Health Department is very restrictive in its review and approval of street merchant activities. See attached regulations. Examples of regulations include: Require expensive equipment meeting certain prescribed standards and will not consider mobile units like a restaurant regardless of design or quality of facilities. Do not allow onsite food preparation except for very rudimentary activities regardless of kitchen facilities contained within the mobile unit (Contract with a commercial kitchen is required). Do not allow seating (Unless a permanent bathroom with handicap access is provided). This makes seating of any kind prohibitive. Require special modifications to commercial equipment that can be expensive, such as locks on electrical hookup attachments. Page 3

79 Require a $ per hour review fee. Based upon this restrictive treatment, that prohibits the type of street merchant activity we see in Portland that the city would like to encourage, the Planning Commission asked staff to discuss this with the Health Department to determine if there is any flexibility we can receive. Discussion with the Health Department indicates there is no flexibility. A representative stated they adopted the regulations to prohibit the type of activity we see in Portland. King County has the same regulations as Thurston County and Seattle has been pushing King County to ease up on standards because of similar concerns. When referring to the possibility of easing up on requirements in Thurston County, the Health Department representative stated It is not going to happen. The Thurston County Health Department has taken a very aggressive stand against these activities and stated it is a war referring to their enforcement against these activities. This discussion makes it clear that this needs to be a regional discussion with the County Commissioners if the city wants to pursue more flexible requirements for street merchants. If the Planning Commission thinks this is something the city should pursue, it can make that recommendation as part of the referral of ordinance changes to the Council. To best address this issue in the scope of amendments to the ordinance proposed wording states: It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain necessary Health Department licenses and to adhere to best practices for food handling when undertaking street merchant activities involving the preparation and serving of food. This minimizes reference to Health requirements and side steps conflicts between what the city street merchant ordinance would allow and the barriers local health regulations have established. 4. Other changes suggested: Staff suggests a few minor changes in addition to those dealing with process and health requirements. Suggested changes are as follows: Amend definition of street fair or market to include outdoor food court. We are seeing outdoor food courts in large cities in high pedestrian areas that add to the pedestrian experience. Lacey likely does not have any areas with pedestrian volume that would support this concept at this time, but it does not hurt to provide the opportunity. See page 3 item k of the proposed ordinance. New definition of Approving authority. This is necessary to define the entity that grants approval under the new process, which may vary depending upon context. See page 2 item A. of proposed ordinance. Page 4

80 New definition of Director. Also necessary for new process where Director may be the approving authority. See page 2 item B. of proposed ordinance. New definition of Designated food vehicle zone and Food vehicle taken from Seattle s ordinance to provide means for Public Works Director to officially designate an area in right of way for a food vehicle. See page 3 items C and D. of proposed ordinance. Definition of Public place taken from Seattle s ordinance to describe public areas. See page 3 item i. of proposed ordinance. New definition of Street merchant structure to describe activities that use a temporary structure and not a cart, such as an espresso stand, a seasonal fireworks stand and similar activity. Also, there is a provision that caps the size of a structure at 200 square feet. See page 4 item m. of proposed ordinance. New definition of Vending cart to define a typical street merchant vehicle. See page 4 item o. of proposed ordinance. Add outdoor food court into regulatory standards throughout ordinance where appropriate to provide for this use and its regulation. Add opportunity to vary from 50 foot distance requirement between street merchant venders to allow multiple venders where pedestrian volume will support it. See page 8 item D of the existing ordinance. See page 13 item D. of proposed ordinance. Take out the prohibition on using parking lots with less than 20 parking spaces. This seems appropriate as we are generally trying to reduce parking spaces. In addition, the department always has the opportunity to deny an application if it will impact the ability of a site to accommodate necessary parking. See page 13 item F 2 of the proposed ordinance. Added several pictures used by Seattle to show street merchant activity and desired operation and function. See pages 9 and 10 items J, P and Q. of proposed ordinance. C. Hearing expectations: This item has been scheduled for a hearing to provide the opportunity for citizen comment. In addition the Lacey Chamber was ed a copy of the ordinance for the opportunity for early review and comment. The Planning Commission will be asked to listen to public comment and to discuss any issues it has identified with proposed changes. If the Planning Commission determines the revisions are appropriate it may take action to refer the amendments to the Council for consideration. Page 5

81 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 8, 2014 SUBJECT: Designated Auditing Officer RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance authorizing the Finance Director to issue payment of claims prior to City Council approval. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Spence, City Manager Troy Woo, Finance Director ORIGINATED BY: Troy Woo, Finance Department ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No Summary for Ordinance No RCW FISCAL NOTE: PRIOR REVIEW: Finance and Economic Development Committee on April 2, 2014, and City Council on April 24, 2014 BACKGROUND: At its April 24, 2014, meeting, the City Council adopted its first motion approving the payment of claims, wages, and transfers. The motion included payments that occurred between March 21, 2014, and April 4, The City Council concurred to follow the optional provisions of RCW (3), which allows the payment of claims to be issued provided the legislative body approves the issued claims at it next regularly scheduled meeting or at a regularly scheduled meeting within one month of issuance. The motion recognized the value of the City s long-term practice for the Finance Director and City Manager to approve claims against the City without prior City Council approval. This long-term practice has allowed the City to establish favorable vendor relations by processing timely invoice payments and to meet short deadlines relating to the processing of the monthly payroll. The City Council has adopted a procurement policy and an annual budget, which serve as the primary guidelines for expenditures. In addition to the adopted Page 1 of 2

82 procurement policy, staff developed procedures that ensure proper procurement practices and stewardship of public funds. The action requested of the City Council is adoption of the proposed ordinance that codifies the City s long time practice for payment of claims. ADVANTAGES: 1. Maintains good vendor relations and administrative efficiencies. 2. Provides clear guidance for the duties delegated to City staff. DISADVANTAGES: 1. None identified. Page 2 of 2

83 ORDINANCE NO CITY OF LACEY AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, AMENDING SECTION OF THE LACEY MUNICIPAL CODE AND APPROVING A SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION. WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted Ordinance No which provisions are contained within Chapter 2.16 of the Lacey Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to promote strong vendor and contractor relations and efficient payroll processing by maintaining the current timely disbursement schedules, and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the value gained by maintaining organizational efficiencies by authorizing the finance director to issue payments prior to City Council approval provided the provisions of State statutes, approved procurement policies and procedures, and adopted budgets are followed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, as follows: Section 1. read as follows: Section of the Lacey Municipal Code is hereby amended to Designated auditing officer. The finance director shall be the auditing officer of the city and shall audit all demands against the city in accordance with the procedure set forth in RCW Chapter and regulations of the state auditor. The finance director is further authorized, upon the approval of the city manager, to issue payment of claims prior to City Council approval provided all of the conditions and requirements of RCW Chapter have been met. Section 2. The Summary attached hereto is hereby approved for publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, at a regularly-called meeting thereof, held this 8 th day of May, CITY COUNCIL Ordinance No Page 1

84 Mayor Attest: Approved as to form: City Clerk City Attorney Publish: May 12, 2014 Ordinance No Page 2

85 SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION ORDINANCE NO CITY OF LACEY The City Council of the City of Lacey, Washington, passed on May 8, 2014, Ordinance No. 1436, entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, AMENDING SECTION OF THE LACEY MUNICIPAL CODE AND APPROVING A SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION. The main points of the Ordinance are described as follows: 1. The Ordinance amends Lacey Municipal Code Section to authorize the finance director to approve the payment of claims without prior City Council approval. 2. The Ordinance approves this Summary for publication. A copy of the full text of this Ordinance will be mailed without charge to any person requesting the same from the City of Lacey. Published: May 12, Ordinance No Page 3

86 RCW : *Taxing district Issuance of warrants or checks before approval by le... Page 1 of 1 2/18/2014 RCW *Taxing district Issuance of w arrants or checks before approval by legislative body Conditions. In order to expedite the payment of claims, the legislative body of any *taxing district, as defined in RCW , may authorize the issuance of warrants or checks in payment of claims after the provisions of this chapter have been met and after the officer designated by statute, or, in the absence of statute, an appropriate charter provision, ordinance, or resolution of the *taxing district, has signed the checks or warrants, but before the legislative body has acted to approve the claims. The legislative body may stipulate that certain kinds or amounts of claims shall not be paid before the board has reviewed the supporting documentation and approved the issue of checks or warrants in payment of those claims. However, all of the following conditions shall be met before the payment: (1) The auditing officer and the officer designated to sign the checks or warrants shall each be required to furnish an official bond for the faithful discharge of his or her duties in an amount determined by the legislative body but not less than fifty thousand dollars; (2) The legislative body shall adopt contracting, hiring, purchasing, and disbursing policies that implement effective internal control; (3) The legislative body shall provide for its review of the documentation supporting claims paid and for its approval of all checks or warrants issued in payment of claims at its next regularly scheduled public meeting or, for cities and towns, at a regularly scheduled public meeting within one month of issuance; and (4) The legislative body shall require that if, upon review, it disapproves some claims, the auditing officer and the officer designated to sign the checks or warrants shall jointly cause the disapproved claims to be recognized as receivables of the *taxing district and to pursue collection diligently until the amounts disapproved are collected or until the legislative body is satisfied and approves the claims. [1994 c ; 1984 c ] Notes: *Reviser's note: "Taxing district" redesignated "local government" by 1995 c

87 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 8, 2014 SUBJECT: Lift Station 18 (Yelm and Intelco) Upgrades RECOMMENDATION: Award Lacey Contract Number PW to low bidder Cherokee Construction Services, LLC from Vancouver, WA, in the amount of $469, STAFF CONTACT: Scott Spence, City Manager Troy Woo, Director of Finance Scott Egger, Director of Public Works Peter Brooks, Water Resources Manager Teri O Neal, Senior Civil Engineer Utility Aubrey Argeris, Utilities Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Bid Summary Sheet FISCAL NOTE: $6,175,019 is budgeted in the Wastewater Capital Fund. Budget Amendment required Fall PRIOR REVIEW: Council approved the Wastewater Capital Fund as part of the 2014 Budget and Carryover. The Lift Station 18 (Yelm and Intelco) Upgrades project is listed as a 2014 Wastewater Capital Fund project. BACKGROUND: This contract provides for bypass pumping, removal of existing equipment, structures and obstructions, installing new equipment, pumps, valves, piping, electrical, and other work. The project was advertised for four weeks and bids were opened April 28, Eight (8) bids were received. The 8 bids ranged from a low of $469, to a high of $700, Cherokee Construction Services, LLC from Vancouver, WA is low bidder at $469, The Engineer s Estimate is $544, A Bid Summary Sheet is attached. Cherokee Construction Services, LLC is qualified and capable of performing the work. Start date is anticipated to be around mid-may and there are 120 working days allotted. Page 1 of 3

88 Estimated 2014 Project Costs^ Consultant PE/CE $12,000 City PE/CE (incl. City Admin Fee) $88,000 Construction $470,000 Total $570,000 ^Costs are rounded to the nearest thousand. The Lift Station 18 (Yelm and Intelco) Upgrades project is funded in Construction, PE and CE are higher than the project costs estimated in A budget amendment is required and will be completed this Fall. ADVANTAGES: 1. Lift station 18 has become increasingly problematic and requires higher maintenance than other lift stations. The finished lift station will be much more functional and serviceable with the design changes. a. Increased reliability of the system b. Reduction in call outs c. Eliminates unique custom fix for the priming system DISADVANTAGES: 1. Budget Amendment needed. Page 2 of 3

89 Page 3 of 3